Comparison of individual and group valuation of health state scenarios across communities in West Africa

Anayo Fidelis Akunne, John F P Bridges, Mamadou Sanon, Rainer Sauerborn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The correct valuation of health state scenarios is important for economic analyses, disease burden assessment and setting clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether we should use individual or group valuations. We aimed to compare individual and group valuations of a range of clinically and culturally relevant health state scenarios in a West African population. Methods: Seventy subjects were purposely selected from seven randomly selected communities in a health district in Burkina Faso. Subjects were presented with ten health state scenarios. The valuation of the scenarios was with a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Fixed-effects ANOVA were used to compare individual valuations from the seven locations. A paired t-test was used to compare individual mean and group valuations. The differences in the ranking of valuations were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Results: On average, group valuations of the disability associated with the scenarios were higher than individual mean valuations by 20% (p = 0.00). The range of group valuations was wider than that of individual mean valuations. The differences in individual valuations of five scenarios across communities were significant (p ≤ 0.01). Within the communities, group and individual rankings of scenarios differed. Across five communities, they correlated significantly and positively. Conclusions: Groups valued the disability associated with health state scenarios as being more severe than individuals. Group valuations could more clearly identify the preferences of different community groups. The use of one group's opinion in setting priorities and making guidelines that relate to the public still requires some caution. Policies that do not account for systematic subgroup differences should be made with caution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)261-268
Number of pages8
JournalApplied Health Economics and Health Policy
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Western Africa
Health
Guidelines
Burkina Faso
Cost of Illness
Nonparametric Statistics
Visual Analog Scale
Individuality
Analysis of Variance
West Africa
Scenarios
Health state
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Comparison of individual and group valuation of health state scenarios across communities in West Africa. / Akunne, Anayo Fidelis; Bridges, John F P; Sanon, Mamadou; Sauerborn, Rainer.

In: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2006, p. 261-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Akunne, Anayo Fidelis ; Bridges, John F P ; Sanon, Mamadou ; Sauerborn, Rainer. / Comparison of individual and group valuation of health state scenarios across communities in West Africa. In: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2006 ; Vol. 5, No. 4. pp. 261-268.
@article{060e15d960f940a7b9201173c739fea7,
title = "Comparison of individual and group valuation of health state scenarios across communities in West Africa",
abstract = "Background: The correct valuation of health state scenarios is important for economic analyses, disease burden assessment and setting clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether we should use individual or group valuations. We aimed to compare individual and group valuations of a range of clinically and culturally relevant health state scenarios in a West African population. Methods: Seventy subjects were purposely selected from seven randomly selected communities in a health district in Burkina Faso. Subjects were presented with ten health state scenarios. The valuation of the scenarios was with a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Fixed-effects ANOVA were used to compare individual valuations from the seven locations. A paired t-test was used to compare individual mean and group valuations. The differences in the ranking of valuations were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Results: On average, group valuations of the disability associated with the scenarios were higher than individual mean valuations by 20{\%} (p = 0.00). The range of group valuations was wider than that of individual mean valuations. The differences in individual valuations of five scenarios across communities were significant (p ≤ 0.01). Within the communities, group and individual rankings of scenarios differed. Across five communities, they correlated significantly and positively. Conclusions: Groups valued the disability associated with health state scenarios as being more severe than individuals. Group valuations could more clearly identify the preferences of different community groups. The use of one group's opinion in setting priorities and making guidelines that relate to the public still requires some caution. Policies that do not account for systematic subgroup differences should be made with caution.",
author = "Akunne, {Anayo Fidelis} and Bridges, {John F P} and Mamadou Sanon and Rainer Sauerborn",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.2165/00148365-200605040-00007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "261--268",
journal = "Applied Health Economics and Health Policy",
issn = "1175-5652",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of individual and group valuation of health state scenarios across communities in West Africa

AU - Akunne, Anayo Fidelis

AU - Bridges, John F P

AU - Sanon, Mamadou

AU - Sauerborn, Rainer

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Background: The correct valuation of health state scenarios is important for economic analyses, disease burden assessment and setting clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether we should use individual or group valuations. We aimed to compare individual and group valuations of a range of clinically and culturally relevant health state scenarios in a West African population. Methods: Seventy subjects were purposely selected from seven randomly selected communities in a health district in Burkina Faso. Subjects were presented with ten health state scenarios. The valuation of the scenarios was with a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Fixed-effects ANOVA were used to compare individual valuations from the seven locations. A paired t-test was used to compare individual mean and group valuations. The differences in the ranking of valuations were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Results: On average, group valuations of the disability associated with the scenarios were higher than individual mean valuations by 20% (p = 0.00). The range of group valuations was wider than that of individual mean valuations. The differences in individual valuations of five scenarios across communities were significant (p ≤ 0.01). Within the communities, group and individual rankings of scenarios differed. Across five communities, they correlated significantly and positively. Conclusions: Groups valued the disability associated with health state scenarios as being more severe than individuals. Group valuations could more clearly identify the preferences of different community groups. The use of one group's opinion in setting priorities and making guidelines that relate to the public still requires some caution. Policies that do not account for systematic subgroup differences should be made with caution.

AB - Background: The correct valuation of health state scenarios is important for economic analyses, disease burden assessment and setting clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether we should use individual or group valuations. We aimed to compare individual and group valuations of a range of clinically and culturally relevant health state scenarios in a West African population. Methods: Seventy subjects were purposely selected from seven randomly selected communities in a health district in Burkina Faso. Subjects were presented with ten health state scenarios. The valuation of the scenarios was with a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Fixed-effects ANOVA were used to compare individual valuations from the seven locations. A paired t-test was used to compare individual mean and group valuations. The differences in the ranking of valuations were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Results: On average, group valuations of the disability associated with the scenarios were higher than individual mean valuations by 20% (p = 0.00). The range of group valuations was wider than that of individual mean valuations. The differences in individual valuations of five scenarios across communities were significant (p ≤ 0.01). Within the communities, group and individual rankings of scenarios differed. Across five communities, they correlated significantly and positively. Conclusions: Groups valued the disability associated with health state scenarios as being more severe than individuals. Group valuations could more clearly identify the preferences of different community groups. The use of one group's opinion in setting priorities and making guidelines that relate to the public still requires some caution. Policies that do not account for systematic subgroup differences should be made with caution.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34047095806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34047095806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2165/00148365-200605040-00007

DO - 10.2165/00148365-200605040-00007

M3 - Article

C2 - 17249842

AN - SCOPUS:34047095806

VL - 5

SP - 261

EP - 268

JO - Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

JF - Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

SN - 1175-5652

IS - 4

ER -