We report the results from two surveys designed to explore whether an application of Harsanyi's principle of choice form behind a veil of ignorance (VEI) can be used in order to measure the health of populations. This approach was tentatively recommended by Murray et al. (Bull. World Health Organ 2000; 78: 981–994; Summary Measures of population health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, WHO, 2002.) as an appropriate way of constructing summary measures of population health (SMPH) for comparative purposes. The operationalization of the VEI approach used in this paper was suggested by Nord (Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, WHO, 2002.). We test if VEI and person trade-off (PTO) methods generate similar quality-of-life weights. In addition, we compare VEI and PTO weights with individual utilities estimated by means of the conventional standard gamble (SG) and a variation of it we call double gamble. Finally, psychometric properties like feasibility, reliability, and consistency are examined. Our main findings are next: (1) VEI and PTO approaches generate very different weights; (2) it seems that differences between PTO and VEI are not due to the ‘rule of rescue’; (3) the VEI resembled more a DG than a classical SG; (4) PTO, VEI, and DG exhibited good feasibility, reliability and consistency. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

References

1 Murray C. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability adjusted life years. Bull WHO 1994; 74: 429–445.
Google Scholar
2 Murray C. Rethinking DALYs. In The Global Burden of Disease. C Murray, A Lopez (eds). World Health Organisation; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1996.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decision Making 1995; 15: 201–208.
10.1177/0272989X9501500302
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Murray C, Salomon J, Mathers C. A critical examination of summary measures of population health. Bull WHO 2000; 78: 981–994.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Murray C, Salomon J, Mathers C. A critical examination of summary measures of population health. In Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, CJL Murray, JA Salomon, CD Mathers, AD Lopez (eds). WHO, 2002.
Google Scholar
6 Murray C, Frenk J. Summary measures of population health in the context of the WHO framework for health system performance assessment. In Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, CJL Murray, JA Salomon, CD Mathers, AD López (eds). WHO, 2002.
Google Scholar
7 Nord E. My goodness – and yours: a history, and some possible futures, of DALY meanings and valuation procedures. In Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, CJL Murray, JA Salomon, CD Mathers, AD López (eds). WHO, 2002.
Google Scholar
8 Menzel P. How should what economist call ‘social values’ be measured. J Ethics 1999; 3: 249–273.
10.1023/A:1009829301765
Google Scholar
9 Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ 2003; 12: 545–551.
10.1002/hec.760
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 McCord M, De Neufville R. “Lottery equivalents”: reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Manage Sci 1985; 32: 56–60.
10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Kahneman D, Tversky A. A prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 50: 277–323.
Google Scholar
12 Hersey JC, Schoemaker PHJ. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement. Manage Sci 1985; 31: 1213–1231.
10.1287/mnsc.31.10.1213
Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Wakker P, Sttigelbout A. Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices. Med Decision Making 1995; 15: 180–186.
10.1177/0272989X9501500212
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Jonsen AR. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care 1986; 14: 172–174.
10.1111/j.1748-720X.1986.tb00974.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15 Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspectives in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 33–41.
10.1177/0272989X9701700104
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Richardson J, McKie J. The Rule of Rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 2407–2419.
10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00244-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. Scot Med J 1957; 2: 200–215.
10.1177/003693305700200504
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
18 Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Modification of Rankin Scale: recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke 1988; 19: 1497–1500.
10.1161/01.STR.19.12.1497
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decision Making 1994; 17: 33–41.
Google Scholar
20 Nemenyi P. Some distribution-free comparison procedures in the asymptotic case. Ann Math Stat 1961; 32: 921–922.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Holm SA. Simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 1979; 6: 65–70.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Torrance GW. Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.
10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences–II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–471.
10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Dolan P et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–31.
10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time tradeoff, and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econo 1997; 16: 155–175.
10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00509-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique. Health Econ 2000; 10: 233–243.
10.1002/hec.581
Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Nord E. Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Making Sense out of QALYs. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999.
10.1017/CBO9780511609145
Google Scholar
28 Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plann Manage 1991; 6: 234–242.
10.1002/hpm.4740060308
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
29 Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices. Med Decision Making 1996; 16: 108–116.
10.1177/0272989X9601600202
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Pinto JL. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ 1997; 6: 71–81.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199701)6:1<71::AID-HEC239>3.0.CO;2-Z
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Nord E, Menzel P, Richardson J. The value of life: individual preferences and social choice. A comment to Magnus Johannesson. Health Econ 2003; 12: 873–877.
10.1002/hec.838
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Van der Maas PJ.Disability weights for diseases in Europe. Project Program. Mimeo, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1997.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume14, Issue1

January 2005

Pages 69-82

Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information