Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10705
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Sanghera, S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Frew, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Gupta, JK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kai, J | - |
dc.contributor.author | Roberts, TE | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-05-01T08:09:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-05-01T08:09:46Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | PharmacoEconomics, 2015 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1170-7690 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10705 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject | Menorrhagia | en_US |
dc.subject | Cost-benefit analysis | en_US |
dc.title | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | PharmacoEconomics | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
Appears in Collections: | Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FullText.pdf | 581.49 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.