The cost-effectiveness of preference-based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia.
Typically, economic evaluation compares the costs and benefits of two or more interventions and seeks to identify the single superior option on the basis of relative cost-effectiveness. It is then anticipated that all patients will receive the more or most cost-effective option. This 'all or nothing' approach can be departed from when sub-groups of patient exist, defined on the basis of clinical or demographic characteristics which are considered to influence benefit, for whom an option is cost-effective whilst not being so for the population of patients as a whole. However, patients' preferences concerning the different process characteristics and outcomes of an intervention will also influence the benefit they derive from health care. This paper explores the concept of preference-based sub-group analysis in economic evaluation to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of using patients' preferences to determine treatment allocation. The clinical example used to explore these methods is the comparison of abdominal hysterectomy (AH) and transcervical resection of the endometrial (TCRE) for the treatment of menorrhagia.
Sculpher
M
M
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. mjs23@york.ac.uk
D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000191:economics* / Q000523:psychology; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000191:economics* / Q000523:psychology; D008595:Menorrhagia / Q000601:surgery*; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years