Popul Health Metr. 2014 Aug 23;12:20. doi: 10.1186/s12963-014-0020-2. eCollection 2014.
Review of disability weight studies: comparison of methodological choices and values.
Population health metrics
Juanita A Haagsma, Suzanne Polinder, Alessandro Cassini, Edoardo Colzani, Arie H Havelaar
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, The Netherlands.
- Office of the Chief Scientist, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, SE-171 83, Sweden.
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Laboratory for Zoonoses and Environmental Microbiology, Bilthoven, 3720 BA, The Netherlands ; Utrecht University, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht, 3508 TD, the Netherlands.
PMID: 26019690
PMCID: PMC4445691 DOI: 10.1186/s12963-014-0020-2
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is widely used to assess the burden of different health problems and risk factors. The disability weight, a value anchored between 0 (perfect health) and 1 (equivalent to death), is necessary to estimate the disability component (years lived with disability, YLDs) of the DALY. After publication of the ground-breaking Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 1996, alternative sets of disability weights have been developed over the past 16 years, each using different approaches with regards to the panel, health state description, and valuation methods. The objective of this study was to review all studies that developed disability weights and to critically assess the methodological design choices (health state and time description, panel composition, and valuation method). Furthermore, disability weights of eight specific conditions were compared.
METHODS: Disability weights studies (1990¿2012) in international peer-reviewed journals and grey literature were identified with main inclusion criteria being that the study assessed DALY disability weights for several conditions or a specific group of illnesses. Studies were collated by design and methods and evaluation of results.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria of our review. There is considerable variation in methods used to derive disability weights, although most studies used a disease-specific description of the health state, a panel that consisted of medical experts, and nonpreference-based valuation method to assess the values for the majority of the disability weights. Comparisons of disability weights across 15 specific disease and injury groups showed that the subdivision of a disease into separate health states (stages) differed markedly across studies. Additionally, weights for similar health states differed, particularly in the case of mild diseases, for which the disability weight differed by a factor of two or more.
CONCLUSIONS: In terms of comparability of the resulting YLDs, the global use of the same set of disability weights has advantages, though practical constraints and intercultural differences should be taken into account into such a set.
Keywords: Disability adjusted life years; Disease burden; Prioritisation; Summary measure of population health; Value of life
References
- Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43 - PubMed
- J Voice. 2011 May;25(3):348-53 - PubMed
- Popul Health Metr. 2008 Dec 29;6:7 - PubMed
- Med Care. 1986 Nov;24(11):973-80 - PubMed
- Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12 ):3828-33 - PubMed
- Lancet. 2000 Jun 10;355(9220):2079-80 - PubMed
- J Affect Disord. 2011 Nov;134(1-3):341-7 - PubMed
- PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44103 - PubMed
- J Health Econ. 1997 Dec;16(6):685-702 - PubMed
- Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S217-32 - PubMed
- Health Econ. 2002 Jun;11(4):341-53 - PubMed
- Int J Health Plann Manage. 1991 Jul-Sep;6(3):234-42 - PubMed
- Med Care. 1997 May;35(5):522-37 - PubMed
- Health Econ. 1996 Jul-Aug;5(4):279-96 - PubMed
- Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43 - PubMed
- Qual Life Res. 2009 Jun;18(5):657-65 - PubMed
- Med J Aust. 2000 Jun 19;172(12):592-6 - PubMed
- Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2197-223 - PubMed
- PLoS Med. 2011 Dec;8(12):e1001140 - PubMed
- Popul Health Metr. 2004 Sep 3;2(1):7 - PubMed
- Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Jul;75(1):23-55 - PubMed
- Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):490-502 - PubMed
- Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Oct;5(5):567-81 - PubMed
- Med Decis Making. 1990 Jan-Mar;10(1):58-67 - PubMed
- J Dent Res. 2007 Aug;86(8):713-7 - PubMed
- Lancet. 1999 Jul 10;354(9173):111-5 - PubMed
- Inj Prev. 2008 Feb;14(1):5-10 - PubMed
- J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Jun;22(3):518-23 - PubMed
- J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999 Jul;4(3):174-84 - PubMed
- Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429-45 - PubMed
- Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8 - PubMed
- Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-16 - PubMed
- Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3):315-29 - PubMed
- Health Econ. 2002 Mar;11(2):155-63 - PubMed
- Popul Health Metr. 2003 Nov 21;1(1):9 - PubMed
- J Health Econ. 1997 Dec;16(6):703-30 - PubMed
- Epidemiol Infect. 2000 Dec;125(3):505-22 - PubMed
- East Mediterr Health J. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):1338-48 - PubMed
- J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Apr;68(4):653-63 - PubMed
- Eur J Public Health. 2009 Oct;19(5):541-7 - PubMed
- J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):653-64 - PubMed
- J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(4):345-54 - PubMed
- Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jun;83(6):443-8 - PubMed
- J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(11):697-704 - PubMed
- Med Decis Making. 2005 Jul-Aug;25(4):460-7 - PubMed
- Med Decis Making. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):500-10 - PubMed
- Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(11):1076-84 - PubMed
- Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001 Dec;1(2):215-28 - PubMed
Publication Types