Valuing the health state 'tinnitus': differences between patients and the general public.
OBJECTIVE
In recent years, prioritisation in health care has gained increasing attention. However, rankings of interventions might depend on whom valuations of health states are elicited from. This paper's objective is to compare tinnitus valuations by patients and the general public.


METHODS
Groups of 210 patients and 210 adults not (currently) affected were interviewed to elicit valuations using visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG). MANOVA is used to test for group differences, controlling for sex and age.


RESULTS
For all elicitation methods, valuations significantly differ in that patients report higher values than the general public respondents. Most notably, on the visual analogue scale which varies between 0 ('worst imaginable health') and 1 ('best imaginable health'), patients elicit a mean score of 0.54, and the general public 0.34 (those with former tinnitus experience) and 0.35 (without experience), respectively (F(2,377)=55.67, p<0.001). That is, patients valuate tinnitus as less severe than unaffected people.


CONCLUSIONS
As for other health states, tinnitus valuations differ depending on whether values of patients or the general public are elicited. These differences should be taken into account in health care evaluation and planning.
Happich
Michael
M
GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, P.O. Box 1129, 85758 Neuherberg, Germany. michael.happich@gsf.de
von Lengerke
Thomas
T
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011788:Quality of Life; D012649:Self Concept; D014012:Tinnitus / Q000191:economics / Q000523:psychology*