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
| Autor: | Flood, C., Barlow, S., Simpson, A., Burls, A., Price, A., Cartwright, M., Brini, S., Service User and Carer Group Advising on Research (SUGAR) |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Research design Cost-Benefit Analysis Eating Disorders Applied psychology lcsh:Medicine Surveys Time-trade-off Self Harm 0302 clinical medicine Surveys and Questionnaires Medicine and Health Sciences 030212 general & internal medicine lcsh:Science Multidisciplinary Depression 030503 health policy & services Middle Aged Eating disorders Caregivers Research Design Female 0305 other medical science Psychology Research Article Adult Mental Health Services Health Personnel Decision Making MEDLINE BF Research and Analysis Methods Decision Support Techniques Feeding and Eating Disorders Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences Quality of life (healthcare) Rating scale Mentally Ill Persons Mental Health and Psychiatry medicine Humans Aged Psychiatric Status Rating Scales Survey Research Health economics Mood Disorders lcsh:R Psychoses medicine.disease Mental health United Kingdom Health Care Cross-Sectional Studies Psychotic Disorders Quality of Life Feasibility Studies lcsh:Q Self-Injurious Behavior |
| Zdroj: | PLoS ONE PLoS ONE, Vol 13, Iss 10, p e0205223 (2018) |
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |
| DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0205223 |
| Popis: | 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|