Cargando…
What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey
BACKGROUND: Utility scores are integral to health economics decision-making. Typically, utility scores have not been scored or developed with mental health service users. The aims of this study were to i) collaborate with service users to develop descriptions of five mental health states (psychosis,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30352071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205223 |
_version_ | 1783365050066534400 |
---|---|
author | Flood, Chris Barlow, Sally Simpson, Alan Burls, Amanda Price, Amy Cartwright, Martin Brini, Stefano |
author_facet | Flood, Chris Barlow, Sally Simpson, Alan Burls, Amanda Price, Amy Cartwright, Martin Brini, Stefano |
author_sort | Flood, Chris |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Utility scores are integral to health economics decision-making. Typically, utility scores have not been scored or developed with mental health service users. The aims of this study were to i) collaborate with service users to develop descriptions of five mental health states (psychosis, depression, eating disorder, medication side effects and self-harm); ii) explore feasibility and acceptability of using scenario-based health states in an e-survey; iii) evaluate which utility measures (standard gamble (SG), time trade off (TTO) and rating scale (RS)) are preferred; and iv) determine how different participant groups discriminate between the health scenarios and rank them. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a co-produced mixed methods cross-sectional online survey. Utility scores were generated using the SG, TTO and RS methods; difficulty of the completing each method, markers of acceptability and participants’ preference were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants (58%) fully completed the survey. For any given health state, SG consistently generated higher utility scores compared to RS and for some health states higher also than TTO (i.e. SG produces inflated utility scores relative to RS and TTO). Results suggest that different utility measures produce different evaluations of described health states. The TTO was preferred by all participant groups over the SG. The three participant groups scored four (of five) health scenarios comparably. Psychosis scored as the worst health state to live with while medication side-effects were viewed more positively than other scenarios (depression, eating disorders, self-harm) by all participant groups. However, there was a difference in how the depression scenario was scored, with service users giving depression a lower utility score compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: Mental health state scenarios used to generate utility scores can be co-produced and are well received by a broad range of participants. Utility valuations using SG, TTO and RS were feasible for use with service users, carers, healthcare professionals and members of the general public. Future studies of utility scores in psychiatry should aim to include mental health service users as both co-investigators and respondents. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6198969 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61989692018-11-19 What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey Flood, Chris Barlow, Sally Simpson, Alan Burls, Amanda Price, Amy Cartwright, Martin Brini, Stefano PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Utility scores are integral to health economics decision-making. Typically, utility scores have not been scored or developed with mental health service users. The aims of this study were to i) collaborate with service users to develop descriptions of five mental health states (psychosis, depression, eating disorder, medication side effects and self-harm); ii) explore feasibility and acceptability of using scenario-based health states in an e-survey; iii) evaluate which utility measures (standard gamble (SG), time trade off (TTO) and rating scale (RS)) are preferred; and iv) determine how different participant groups discriminate between the health scenarios and rank them. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a co-produced mixed methods cross-sectional online survey. Utility scores were generated using the SG, TTO and RS methods; difficulty of the completing each method, markers of acceptability and participants’ preference were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants (58%) fully completed the survey. For any given health state, SG consistently generated higher utility scores compared to RS and for some health states higher also than TTO (i.e. SG produces inflated utility scores relative to RS and TTO). Results suggest that different utility measures produce different evaluations of described health states. The TTO was preferred by all participant groups over the SG. The three participant groups scored four (of five) health scenarios comparably. Psychosis scored as the worst health state to live with while medication side-effects were viewed more positively than other scenarios (depression, eating disorders, self-harm) by all participant groups. However, there was a difference in how the depression scenario was scored, with service users giving depression a lower utility score compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: Mental health state scenarios used to generate utility scores can be co-produced and are well received by a broad range of participants. Utility valuations using SG, TTO and RS were feasible for use with service users, carers, healthcare professionals and members of the general public. Future studies of utility scores in psychiatry should aim to include mental health service users as both co-investigators and respondents. Public Library of Science 2018-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6198969/ /pubmed/30352071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205223 Text en © 2018 Flood et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Flood, Chris Barlow, Sally Simpson, Alan Burls, Amanda Price, Amy Cartwright, Martin Brini, Stefano What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title | What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title_full | What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title_fullStr | What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title_full_unstemmed | What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title_short | What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey |
title_sort | what utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? a co-produced mixed methods online survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30352071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205223 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT floodchris whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT barlowsally whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT simpsonalan whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT burlsamanda whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT priceamy whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT cartwrightmartin whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT brinistefano whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey AT whatutilityscoresdomentalhealthserviceusershealthcareprofessionalsandmembersofthegeneralpublicattributetodifferenthealthstatesacoproducedmixedmethodsonlinesurvey |