Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study

J. M. Van Dongen, M. L. Van Hooff, A. P. Finch, M. W. Van Tulder, J. E. Bosmans, R. W.J.G. Ostelo, M. De Kleuver

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Utility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status. Methods: Data of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients' preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Results: Patient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95%CI:0.063-0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Conclusions: Patients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.

Original languageEnglish
Article number166
JournalHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Health Status
Demography
Catastrophization
Back Pain
Social Support
Comorbidity
Leg
Education
Patient Preference
Health
Proxy
Pain
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Chronic low back pain
  • General public values
  • Patient values
  • Utility values

Cite this

@article{350ff83937fd438ea69096b78b5a5066,
title = "Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study",
abstract = "Background: Utility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status. Methods: Data of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients' preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Results: Patient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95{\%}CI:0.063-0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Conclusions: Patients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.",
keywords = "Chronic low back pain, General public values, Patient values, Utility values",
author = "{Van Dongen}, {J. M.} and {Van Hooff}, {M. L.} and Finch, {A. P.} and {Van Tulder}, {M. W.} and Bosmans, {J. E.} and Ostelo, {R. W.J.G.} and {De Kleuver}, M.",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1186/s12955-019-1240-8",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "Health and Quality of Life Outcomes",
issn = "1477-7525",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study

AU - Van Dongen, J. M.

AU - Van Hooff, M. L.

AU - Finch, A. P.

AU - Van Tulder, M. W.

AU - Bosmans, J. E.

AU - Ostelo, R. W.J.G.

AU - De Kleuver, M.

PY - 2019/11/6

Y1 - 2019/11/6

N2 - Background: Utility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status. Methods: Data of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients' preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Results: Patient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95%CI:0.063-0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Conclusions: Patients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.

AB - Background: Utility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status. Methods: Data of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients' preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Results: Patient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95%CI:0.063-0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations. Conclusions: Patients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.

KW - Chronic low back pain

KW - General public values

KW - Patient values

KW - Utility values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074625838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074625838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12955-019-1240-8

DO - 10.1186/s12955-019-1240-8

M3 - Article

VL - 17

JO - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

JF - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

SN - 1477-7525

IS - 1

M1 - 166

ER -