Alastair Canaway’s journal round-up for 10th June 2019

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Analytic considerations in applying a general economic evaluation reference case to gene therapy. Value in Health Published 17th May 2019

For fledgling health economists starting in the world of economic evaluation, the NICE reference case is somewhat of a holy text. If in doubt, check the reference case. The concept of a reference case for economic evaluation has been around since the first US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996 and NICE has routinely used its own reference case for well over a decade. The primary purpose of the reference case is to improve the quality and comparability of economic evaluations by standardising methodological practices. There have been arguments made that the same methods are not appropriate for all medical technologies, particularly those in rare diseases or where no treatment currently exists. The focus of this paper is on gene therapy: a novel method that inserts genetic material into cells (as opposed to a drug/surgery) to treat or prevent disease. In this area there has been significant debate as to the appropriateness of the reference case and whether a new reference case is required in this transformative but expensive area. The purpose of the article was to examine the characteristics of gene therapy and make recommendations on changes to the reference case accordingly.

The paper does an excellent job of unpicking the key components of economic evaluation in relation to gene therapy to examine where weaknesses in current reference cases may lie. Rather than recommend that a new reference case be created, they identify specific areas that should be paid special attention when evaluating gene therapy. Additionally, they produce a three part checklist to help analysts to consider what aspects of their economic evaluation they should consider further. For those about to embark on an economic evaluation of a gene therapy intervention, this paper represents an excellent starting point to guide your methodological choices.

Heterogeneous effects of obesity on mental health: evidence from Mexico. Health Economics [PubMed] [RePEc] Published April 2019

The first line of the ‘summary’ section of this paper caught my eye: “Obesity can spread more easily if it is not perceived negatively”. This stirred up contradictory thoughts. From a public health standpoint we should be doing our utmost to prevent increasing levels of obesity and their related co-morbidities, whilst simultaneously we should be promoting body positivity and well-being for mental health. Is there a tension here? Might promoting body positivity and well-being enable the spread of obesity? This paper doesn’t really answer that question, instead it sought to investigate whether overweight and obesity had differing effects on mental health within different populations groups.

The study is set in Mexico which has the highest rate of obesity in the world with 70% of the population being overweight or obese. Previous research suggests that obesity spreads more easily if not perceived negatively. This paper hypothesises that this effect will be more acute among the poor and middle classes where obesity is more prevalent. The study aimed to reveal the extent of the impact of obesity on well-being whilst controlling for common determinants of well-being by examining the impact of measures of fatness on subjective well-being, allowing for heterogeneous effects across differing groups. The paper focused only on women, who tend to be more affected by excess weight than men (in Mexico at least).

To assess subjective well-being (SWB) the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) was used whilst weight status was measured using waist to height ratio and additionally an obesity dummy. Data was sourced from the Mexican Family and Life Survey and the baseline sample included over 13,000 women. Various econometric models were employed ranging from OLS to instrumental variable estimations, details of which can be found within the paper.

The results supported the hypothesis. They found that there was a negative effect of fatness on well-being for the rich, whilst there was a positive effect for the poor. This has interesting policy implications: policy attempt to reduce obesity may not work if excess weight is not perceived to be an issue. The findings in this study imply that different policy measures are likely necessary for intervening in the wealthy and the poor in Mexico. The paper offers several explanations as to why this relationship may exist, ranging from the poor having lower returns from healthy time (nod to the Grossman model), to differing labour market penalties from fatness due to different job types for the rich and the poor.

Obviously there are limits to the generalisability of these findings, however it does raise interesting questions about how we should seek to prevent obesity within different elements of society, and the unintended consequences that shifts in attitudes may have.

ICECAP-O, the current state of play: a systematic review of studies reporting the psychometric properties and use of the instrument over the decade since its publication. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published June 2019

Those who follow the methodological side of outcome measurement will be familiar with the capability approach, operationalised by the ICECAP suite of measures amongst others. These measures focus on what people are able to do, rather than what they do. It is now 12-13 years since the first ICECAP measure was developed: the ICECAP-O designed for use in older adults. Given the ICECAP measures are now included within the NICE reference case for the economic evaluation of social care, it is a pertinent time to look back over the past decade to assess whether the ICECAP measures are being used and, if so, to what degree and how. This systematic review focusses on the oldest of the ICECAP measures, the ICECAP-O, and examines whether it has been used, and for what purpose as well as summarising the results from psychometric papers.

An appropriate search strategy was deployed within the usual health economic databases, and the PRISMA checklist was used to guide the review. In total 663 papers were identified, of which 51 papers made it through the screening process.

The first 8 years of the ICECAP-O’s life is characterised by an increasing amount of psychometric studies, however in 2014 a reversal occurred. Simultaneously, the number of studies using the ICECAP-O within economic evaluations has slowly increased, surmounting the number examining the psychometric properties, and has increased year-on-year in the three years up to 2018. Overall, the psychometric literature found the ICECAP-O to have good construct validity and generally good content validity with the occasional exception in groups of people with specific medical needs. Although the capability approach has gained prominence, the studies within the review suggest it is still very much seen as a secondary instrument to the EQ-5D and QALY framework, with results typically being brief with little to no discussion or interpretation of the ICECAP-O results.

One of the key limitations to the ICECAP framework to date relates to how economists and decision makers should use the results from the ICECAP instruments. Should capabilities be combined with time (e.g. years in full capability), or should some minimum (sufficient) capability threshold be used? The paper concludes that in the short term, presenting results in terms of ‘years of full capability’ is the best bet, however future research should focus on identifying sufficient capability and establishing monetary thresholds for a year with sufficient capability. Given this, whilst the ICECAP-O has seen increased use over the years, there is still significant work to be done to facilitate decision making and for it to routinely be used as a primary outcome for economic evaluation.

Credits

Alastair Canaway’s journal round-up for 30th July 2018

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Is there an association between early weight status and utility-based health-related quality of life in young children? Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 10th July 2018

Childhood obesity is an issue which has risen to prominence in recent years. Concurrently, there has been an increased interest in measuring utility values in children for use in economic evaluation. In the obesity context, there are relatively few studies that have examined whether childhood weight status is associated with preference-based utility and, following, whether such measures are useful for the economic evaluation of childhood obesity interventions. This study sought to tackle this issue using the proxy version of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) and weight status data in 368 children aged five years. Associations between weight status and HUI-3 score were assessed using various regression techniques. No statistically significant differences were found between weight status and preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQL). This adds to several recent studies with similar findings which imply that young children may not experience any decrements in HRQL associated with weight status, or that the measures we have cannot capture these decrements. When considering trial-based economic evaluation of childhood obesity interventions, this highlights that we should not be solely relying on preference-based instruments.

Time is money: investigating the value of leisure time and unpaid work. Value in Health Published 14th July 2018

For those of us who work on trials, we almost always attempt to do some sort of ‘societal’ perspective incorporating benefits beyond health. When it comes to valuing leisure time and unpaid work there is a dearth of literature and numerous methodological challenges which has led to a bit of a scatter-gun approach to measuring and valuing (usually by ignoring) this time. The authors in the paper sought to value unpaid work (e.g. household chores and voluntary work) and leisure time (“non-productive” time to be spent on one’s likings, nb. this includes lunch breaks). They did this using online questionnaires which included contingent valuation exercises (WTP and WTA) in a sample of representative adults in the Netherlands. Regression techniques following best practice were used (two-part models with transformed data). Using WTA they found an additional hour of unpaid work and leisure time was valued at €16 Euros, whilst the WTP value was €9.50. These values fall into similar ranges to those used in other studies. There are many issues with stated preference studies, which the authors thoroughly acknowledge and address. These costs, so often omitted in economic evaluation, have the potential to be substantial and there remains a need to accurately value this time. Capturing and valuing these time costs remains an important issue, specifically, for those researchers working in countries where national guidelines for economic evaluation prefer a societal perspective.

The impact of depression on health-related quality of life and wellbeing: identifying important dimensions and assessing their inclusion in multi-attribute utility instruments. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 13th July 2018

At the start of every trial, we ask “so what measures should we include?” In the UK, the EQ-5D is the default option, though this decision is not often straightforward. Mental health disorders have a huge burden of impact in terms of both costs (economic and healthcare) and health-related quality of life. How we currently measure the impact of such disorders in economic evaluation often receives scrutiny and there has been recent interest in broadening the evaluative space beyond health to include wellbeing, both subjective wellbeing (SWB) and capability wellbeing (CWB). This study sought to identify which dimensions of HRQL, SWB and CWB were most affected by depression (the most common mental health disorder) and to examine the sensitivity of existing multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) to these dimensions. The study used data from the “Multi-Instrument Comparison” study – this includes lots of measures, including depression measures (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale); SWB measures (Personal Wellbeing Index, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Integrated Household Survey); CWB (ICECAP-A); and multi-attribute utility instruments (15D, AQoL-4D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI-3, QWB-SA, and SF-6D). To identify dimensions that were important, the authors used the ‘Glass’s Delta effect size’ (the difference between the mean scores of healthy and self-reported groups divided by the standard deviation of the healthy group). To investigate the extent to which current MAUIs capture these dimensions, each MAUI was regressed on each dimension of HRQL, CWB and SWB. There were lots of interesting findings. Unsurprisingly, the most important dimensions were in the psychosocial dimensions of HRQL (e.g. the ‘coping’, ‘happiness’, and ‘self-worth’ dimensions of the AQoL-8D). Interestingly, the ICECAP-A proved to be the best measure for distinguishing between healthy individuals and those with depression. The SWB measures, on the other hand, were less impacted by depression. Of the MAUIs, the AQoL-8D was the most sensitive, whilst our beloved EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were the least sensitive at distinguishing dimensions. There is a huge amount to unpack within this study, but it does raise interesting questions regarding measurement issues and the impact of broadening the evaluative space for decision makers. Finally, it’s worth noting that a new MAUI (ReQoL) for mental health has been recently developed – although further testing is needed, this is something to consider in future.

Credits

Alastair Canaway’s journal round-up for 28th May 2018

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Information, education, and health behaviours: evidence from the MMR vaccine autism controversy. Health Economics [PubMed] Published 2nd May 2018

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published (in the Lancet) his infamous and later retracted research purportedly linking the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. Despite the thorough debunking and exposure of academic skulduggery, a noxious cloud of misinformation remained in the public mind, particularly in the US. This study examined several facets of the MMR fake news including: what impact did this have on vaccine uptake in the US (both MMR and other vaccines); how did state level variation in media coverage impact uptake; and what role did education play in subsequent decisions about whether to vaccinate or not. This study harnessed the National Immunization Survey from 1995 to 2006 to answer these questions. This is a yearly dataset of over 200,000 children aged between 19 to 35 months with detailed information on not just immunisation, but also maternal education, income and other sociodemographics. The NewsLibrary database was used to identify stories published in national and state media relating to vaccines and autism. Various regression methods were implemented to examine these data. The paper found that, unsurprisingly, for the year following the Wakefield publication the MMR vaccine take-up declined by between 1.1%-1.5% (notably less than 3% in the UK), likewise this fall in take-up spilled over into other vaccines take-up. The most interesting finding related to education: MMR take-up for children of college-educated mothers declined significantly compared to those without a degree. This can be explained by the education gradient where more-educated individuals absorb and respond to health information more quickly. However, in the US, this continued for many years beyond 2003 despite proliferation of research refuting the autism-MMR link. This contrasts to the UK where educational link closed soon after the findings were refuted, that is, in the UK, the educated responded to the new information refuting the MMR-Autism link. In the US, despite the research being debunked, MMR uptake was lower in the children of those with higher levels of education for many more years. The author speculates that this contrast to the UK may be a result of the media influencing parents’ decisions. Whilst the media buzz in the UK peaked in 2002, it had largely subsided by 2003. In the US however, the media attention was constant, if not increasing till 2006, and so this may have been the reason the link remained within the US. So, we have Andrew Wakefield and arguably fearmongering media to blame for causing a long-term reduction in MMR take-up in the US. Overall, an interesting study leaning on multiple datasets that could be of interest for those working with big data.

Can social care needs and well-being be explained by the EQ-5D? Analysis of the Health Survey for England. Value in Health Published 23rd May 2018

There is increasing discussion about integrating health and social care to provide a more integrated approach to fulfilling health and social care needs. This creates challenges for health economists and decision makers when allocating resources, particularly when comparing benefits from different sectors. NICE itself recognises that the EQ-5D may be inappropriate in some situations. With the likes of ASCOT, ICECAP and WEMWBS frequenting the health economics world this isn’t an unknown issue. To better understand the relationship between health and social care measures, this EuroQol Foundation funded study examined the relationship between social care needs as measured by the Barthel Index, well-being measured using WEMWBS and also the GGH-12, and the EQ-5D as the measure of health. Data was obtained through the Health Survey for England (HSE) and contained 3354 individuals aged over 65 years. Unsurprisingly the authors found that higher health and wellbeing scores were associated with an increased probability of no social care needs. Those who are healthier or at higher levels of wellbeing are less likely to need social care. Of all the instruments, it was the self-care and the pain/discomfort dimensions of the EQ-5D that were most strongly associated with the need for social care. No GHQ-12 dimensions were statistically significant, and for the WEMWBS only the ‘been feeling useful’ and ‘had energy to spare’ were statistically significantly associated with social care need. The authors also investigated various other associations between the measures with many unsurprising findings e.g. EQ-5D anxiety/depression dimension was negatively associated with wellbeing as measured using the GHQ-12. Although the findings are favourable for the EQ-5D in terms of it capturing to some extent social care needs, there is clearly still a gap whereby some outcomes are not necessarily captured. Considering this, the authors suggest that it might be appropriate to strap on an extra dimension to the EQ-5D (known as a ‘bolt on’) to better capture important ‘other’ dimensions, for example, to capture dignity or any other important social care outcomes. Of course, a significant limitation with this paper relates to the measures available in the data. Measures such as ASCOT and ICECAP have been developed and operationalised for economic evaluation with social care in mind, and a comparison against these would have been more informative.

The health benefits of a targeted cash transfer: the UK Winter Fuel Payment. Health Economics [PubMed] [RePEc] Published 9th May 2018

In the UK, each winter is accompanied by an increase in mortality, often known as ‘excess winter mortality’ (EWM). To combat this, the UK introduced the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP), the purpose of the WFP is an unconditional cash transfer to households containing an older person (those most vulnerable to EWM) above the female state pension age with the intent for this to used to help the elderly deal with the cost of keeping their dwelling warm. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether the WFP policy has improved the health of elderly people. The authors use the Health Surveys for England (HSE), the Scottish health Survey (SHeS) and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) and employ a regression discontinuity design to estimate causal effects of the WFP. To measure impact (benefit) they focus on circulatory and respiratory illness as measured by: self-reports of chest infection, nurse measured hypertension, and two blood biomarkers for infection and inflammation. The authors found that for those living in a household receiving the payment there was a 6% point reduction (p<0.01) in the incidence of high levels of serum fibrinogen (biomarker) which are considered to be a marker of current infection and are associated with chronic pulmonary disease. For the other health outcomes, although positive, the estimated effects were less robust and not statistically significant. The authors investigated the impact of increasing the age of eligibility for the WFP (in line with the increase of women’s pension age). Their findings suggest there may be some health cost associated with the increase in age of eligibility for WFP. To surmise, the paper highlights that there may be some health benefits from the receipt of the WFP. What it doesn’t however consider is opportunity cost. With WFP costing about £2 billion per year, as a health economist, I can’t help but wonder if the money could have been better spent through other avenues.

Credits