RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Estimating joint health state utility algorithms under partial information
Bray, J. W., Thornburg, B. D., Gebreselassie, A. W., LaButte, C. A., Barbosa, C., & Wittenberg, E. (2023). Estimating joint health state utility algorithms under partial information. Value in Health, 26(5), 742-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.009
OBJECTIVES: We explored the performance of existing joint health state utility estimators when data are not available on utilities that isolate single-condition health states excluding any co-occurring condition.
METHODS: Using data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, we defined 2 information sets: (1) a full-information set that includes the narrowly defined health state utilities used in most studies that test the performance of joint health state utility estimators, and (2) a limited information set that includes only the more broadly defined health state utilities more commonly available to researchers. We used an example of alcohol use disorder co-occurring with cirrhosis of the liver, depressive disorder, or nicotine use disorder to illustrate our analysis.
RESULTS: We found that the performance of joint health state utility estimators is appreciably different under limited information than under full information. Full-information estimators typically overestimate the joint state utility, whereas limited-information estimators underestimate the joint state utility, except for the minimum estimator, which is overestimated in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers using joint health state utility estimators should understand the information set available to them and use methodological guidance appropriate for that information set. We recommend the minimum estimator under limited information based on its ease of use, consistency (and therefore a predictable direction of bias), and lower root mean squared error.