Patients' Self-Reported Disability Weights of Top-Ranking Diseases in Thailand: Do They Differ by Socio-Demographic and Illness Characteristics?

Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to systematically review the literature on health utility in depression generated by time trade-off (TTO) method and to compare health state vignettes.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guideline in 2020 November (updated in 2022 March) in Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Random effect meta-analysis was conducted to pool vignette-based utility values of mild, moderate, and severe depression and to compare the preferences of depressed and nondepressed population.

RESULTS

Overall, 264 records were found, 143 screened by title and abstract after removing duplicates, 18 assessed full text, and 14 original publications included. Majority of the studies (n = 9) used conventional TTO method, and most of the studies (n = 8) applied 10-year timeframe. Eight studies evaluated self-experienced health (own-current depression). Six studies assessed vignette-based health states of remitted, mild, moderate, and severe depression, half of them applied McSad measure based health description. Altogether, 61 different utility values have been cataloged, mean utility of self-experienced depression states (n = 33) ranged between 0.89 (current-own depression) and 0.24 (worst experienced depression). Pooled utility estimates for vignette-based mild, moderate, and severe depression was 0.75, 0.66 and 0.50, respectively. Meta-regression showed that severe depression (β = -0.16) and depressed sample populations (β =  -0.13) significantly decrease vignette-based utility scores.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed extent heterogeneity both in TTO methodology and health state vignette development. Patient's perception of depression health states was worse than healthy respondents.

A systematic literature review of disability weights measurement studies: evolution of methodological choices

Background

The disability weight is an essential factor to estimate the healthy time that is lost due to living with a certain state of illness. A 2014 review showed a considerable variation in methods used to derive disability weights. Since then, several sets of disability weights have been developed. This systematic review aimed to provide an updated and comparative overview of the methodological design choices and surveying techniques that have been used in disability weights measurement studies and how they evolved over time.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in multiple international databases (early-1990 to mid-2021). Records were screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. The quality of the included disability weights measurement studies was assessed using the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies (CREATE) instrument. Studies were collated by characteristics and methodological design approaches. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and discussed with a second.

Results

Forty-six unique disability weights measurement studies met our eligibility criteria. More than half (n = 27; 59%) of the identified studies assessed disability weights for multiple ill-health outcomes. Thirty studies (65%) described the health states using disease-specific descriptions or a combination of a disease-specific descriptions and generic-preference instruments. The percentage of studies obtaining health preferences from a population-based panel increased from 14% (2004–2011) to 32% (2012–2021). None of the disability weight studies published in the past 10 years used the annual profile approach. Most studies performed panel-meetings to obtain disability weights data.

Conclusions

Our review reveals that a methodological uniformity between national and GBD disability weights studies increased, especially from 2010 onwards. Over years, more studies used disease-specific health state descriptions in line with those of the GBD study, panel from general populations, and data from web-based surveys and/or household surveys. There is, however, a wide variation in valuation techniques that were used to derive disability weights at national-level and that persisted over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13690-022-00860-z.

Estimation of Years Lived with Disability Using a Prevalence-Based Approach: Application to Major Psychiatric Disease in Korea

To help develop policies concerning the prevention of psychiatric disease in Korea, we reviewed the literature on this topic in different countries and used a prevalence-based approach to estimate the years lived with disability (YLDs) in Korean patients with major psychiatric diseases. We calculated YLDs by extracting data on the number of patients with mild, moderate, and severe cases of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, as classified by International Statistical Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. YLDs were highest for patients with major depressive disorder (1190.6; 73.9%), schizophrenia (303.3; 18.8%) and bipolar disorder (117.9; 7.3%). Men had higher YLDs for schizophrenia, 2502 (20-24 years); bipolar disorder, 477 (40-44 years); and major depressive disorder, 2034 (75-79 years). Women had higher YLDs for schizophrenia, 484 (45-49 years); bipolar disorder, 214 (≥80 years); and major depressive disorder, 3541 (75-79 years). The prevalence-based approach and severity distribution is useful for estimating long-term psychiatric disease burden and YLDs. However, YLD-estimation studies must compensate for the shortcomings of the ICD-10 by referencing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition, as well as updating the disability weight score according to disease severity.