Objectives: Some argue that generic preference-based measures (PBMs) are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements. To overcome this problem, new condition-specific PBMs (CS-PBMs) are being developed, but it is not yet clear how such measures compare with existing generic PBMs. Method: We generated CS-PBMs from three condition-specific questionnaires (Health Assessment Questionnaire for arthritis, Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer 30 for cancer, and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale 29 for multiple sclerosis). First, the questionnaires were reduced in content, and then, a time trade-off study was conducted in the general public (N = 402) to obtain weights associated with the dimensions and levels of the new questionnaire. Finally, we compared utilities obtained by using the CS-PBMs with utilities obtained by using the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire in four data sets. Results: Utility values generated by the CS-PBMs were higher than those of the EQ-5D questionnaire. The Health Assessment Questionnaire-based measure for arthritis proved to be insensitive to comorbidities. Measures based on the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale 29 and the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer 30 discriminated comorbidities and side effect equally well as the EQ-5D questionnaire and were more sensitive than the EQ-5D questionnaire for mild impairments. Conclusions: The introduction of PBMs that are specific to a certain disease may have the merit of sensitivity to disease-specific effects of interventions. That gain, however, is traded off to the loss of comparability of utility values and, in some cases, insensitivity to side effects and comorbidity. The use of a CS-PBM for cost-utility analysis is warranted only under strict conditions.

, , ,
doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003, hdl.handle.net/1765/68891
Value in Health
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA)

Versteegh, M., van Dongen-Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C., & Stolk, E. (2012). Condition-specific preference-based measures: Benefit or burden?. Value in Health, 15(3), 504–513. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003