Abstract
ObjectiveIn recent years, prioritisation in health care has gained
increasing attention. However, rankings of interventions might depend
on whom valuations of health states are elicited from. This paper’s
objective is to compare tinnitus valuations by patients and the general
public.MethodsGroups of 210 patients and 210 adults not (currently)
affected were interviewed to elicit valuations using visual analogue
scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG). MANOVA
is used to test for group differences, controlling for sex and age.ResultsFor
all elicitation methods, valuations significantly differ in that
patients report higher values than the general public respondents.
Most notably, on the visual analogue scale which varies between 0
(‘worst imaginable health’) and 1 (‘best imaginable health’), patients
elicit a mean score of 0.54, and the general public 0.34 (those with
former tinnitus experience) and 0.35 (without experience), respectively
(F(2,377) = 55.67, p < 0.001). That is, patients valuate tinnitus
as less severe than unaffected people.ConclusionAs for other health
states, tinnitus valuations differ depending on whether values of
patients or the general public are elicited. These differences should
be taken into account in health care evaluation and planning.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).