Display options
Share it on

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

  1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, The Netherlands.
  2. Office of the Chief Scientist, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, SE-171 83, Sweden.
  3. 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

  1. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43 - PubMed
  2. J Voice. 2011 May;25(3):348-53 - PubMed
  3. Popul Health Metr. 2008 Dec 29;6:7 - PubMed
  4. Med Care. 1986 Nov;24(11):973-80 - PubMed
  5. Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12 ):3828-33 - PubMed
  6. Lancet. 2000 Jun 10;355(9220):2079-80 - PubMed
  7. J Affect Disord. 2011 Nov;134(1-3):341-7 - PubMed
  8. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44103 - PubMed
  9. J Health Econ. 1997 Dec;16(6):685-702 - PubMed
  10. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S217-32 - PubMed
  11. Health Econ. 2002 Jun;11(4):341-53 - PubMed
  12. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1991 Jul-Sep;6(3):234-42 - PubMed
  13. Med Care. 1997 May;35(5):522-37 - PubMed
  14. Health Econ. 1996 Jul-Aug;5(4):279-96 - PubMed
  15. Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43 - PubMed
  16. Qual Life Res. 2009 Jun;18(5):657-65 - PubMed
  17. Med J Aust. 2000 Jun 19;172(12):592-6 - PubMed
  18. Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2197-223 - PubMed
  19. PLoS Med. 2011 Dec;8(12):e1001140 - PubMed
  20. Popul Health Metr. 2004 Sep 3;2(1):7 - PubMed
  21. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Jul;75(1):23-55 - PubMed
  22. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):490-502 - PubMed
  23. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Oct;5(5):567-81 - PubMed
  24. Med Decis Making. 1990 Jan-Mar;10(1):58-67 - PubMed
  25. J Dent Res. 2007 Aug;86(8):713-7 - PubMed
  26. Lancet. 1999 Jul 10;354(9173):111-5 - PubMed
  27. Inj Prev. 2008 Feb;14(1):5-10 - PubMed
  28. J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Jun;22(3):518-23 - PubMed
  29. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999 Jul;4(3):174-84 - PubMed
  30. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429-45 - PubMed
  31. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8 - PubMed
  32. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-16 - PubMed
  33. Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3):315-29 - PubMed
  34. Health Econ. 2002 Mar;11(2):155-63 - PubMed
  35. Popul Health Metr. 2003 Nov 21;1(1):9 - PubMed
  36. J Health Econ. 1997 Dec;16(6):703-30 - PubMed
  37. Epidemiol Infect. 2000 Dec;125(3):505-22 - PubMed
  38. East Mediterr Health J. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):1338-48 - PubMed
  39. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Apr;68(4):653-63 - PubMed
  40. Eur J Public Health. 2009 Oct;19(5):541-7 - PubMed
  41. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):653-64 - PubMed
  42. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(4):345-54 - PubMed
  43. Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jun;83(6):443-8 - PubMed
  44. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(11):697-704 - PubMed
  45. Med Decis Making. 2005 Jul-Aug;25(4):460-7 - PubMed
  46. Med Decis Making. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):500-10 - PubMed
  47. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(11):1076-84 - PubMed
  48. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001 Dec;1(2):215-28 - PubMed

Publication Types