Disability Weights Measurement for 289 Causes of Disease Considering Disease Severity in Korea.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ock M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6434154 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Disability Weights Measurement for 289 Causes of Disease Considering Disease Severity in Korea.
Ock Minsu M Park Bomi B Park Hyesook H Oh In-Hwan IH Yoon Seok-Jun SJ Cho Bogeum B Jo Min-Woo MW
Journal of Korean medical science 20190214 Suppl 1
<h4>Background</h4>For the Korean Burden of Disease (KBD) 2015 study, we have amended disability weights for causes of disease adapting the methodology of the KBD disability weight 2012 study.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a self-administered web-based survey in Korea using ranking five causes of disease. A total of 605 physicians and medical college students who were attending in third or fourth grade of a regular course performed the survey. We converted the ranked data into paired comparison da ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Disability weight for each disease plays a key role in combining years lived with disability and years of life lost in disability adjusted life year. For the Korean Burden of Disease 2012 study, we have conducted a re-estimation of disability weights for causes of disease by adapting the methodology of a recent Global Burden of Disease study. Our study was conducted through a self-administered web-based survey using a paired comparison (PC) as the main valuation method. A total of 496 physicians and medical college students who were attending in third or fourth grade of a regular course conducted the survey. We applied a probit regression on the PC data and computed the predicted probabilities of each cause of disease from the coefficient estimates of the probit regression. We used 'being dead (1)' and 'full health (0)' as anchor points to rescale the predicted probability of each cause of disease on a scale of 0 to 1. By this method, disability weights for a total of 228 causes of disease were estimated. There was a fairly high correlation between the disability weights of overlapping causes of disease from this study and a previous South Korean study despite the differences in valuation methods and time periods. In conclusion, we have shown that disability weights can be estimated based on a PC by including 'full health' and 'being dead' as anchor points without resorting to a person trade-off. Through developments in the methodology of disability weights estimation from this study, disability weights can be easily estimated and continuously revised.
| S-EPMC5081294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKorea is expected to become an ultra-aged society, in which the elderly population will account for more than 20% of the total population, after 2025. Thus, the social costs due to osteoporotic fractures are expected to increase. Therefore, this study aimed to measure disability weights (DWs) of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in Korea.MethodsThe scenarios were developed to standardize the severity of 6 health statuses: osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures including wrist, hip, post-hip, vertebral, and post-vertebral fracture. The values for these 6 health statuses were sought via a person trade-off (PTO) approach. We measured the value by PTO and we calculated it to DW of 6 health statuses. Three clinical expertise panels of 33 experts were established, and face-to-face interviews were conducted from July to December 2017.ResultsThe distribution of DW varied by panel. DWs ranged from 0.5 (Osteoporosis) to 0.857 (Hip fracture) for Panel 1, 0.091 (Osteoporosis) to 0.5 (Hip fracture) for Panel 2, and 0.091 (Osteoporosis) to 0.726 (Hip fracture) for Panel 3. The final values for the 6 health statuses obtained by pooling all data from 3 panels ranged from 0.286 (Osteoporosis) to 0.750 (Hip fracture). There was no significant difference in rankings for the 6 health statuses among the 3 panels.ConclusionsComparing the DW of osteoporotic fracture in this study with other diseases in previous studies, it is predicted that osteoporotic fractures, especially hip fractures, will have a considerable burden of disease.
| S-EPMC6561851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUtility weight, a measure of health-related quality of life, is used in disease burden measurements and economic evaluations. In this study, we used the visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) method to determine the utility weights of lung cancer health states in South Korea from a societal perspective.MethodsSix hypothetical health states for lung cancer or a related health state reflective of disease severity were developed: 1) Stage I, 2) Stage II, 3) Stage IIIa, 4) Stage IIIB, 5) Stage IV, and 6) Pulmonary nodule. The description of each health state description was divided into four parts: diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, and progression and prognosis. A total of 515 representative adult Korean participants used a VAS and SG to evaluate these six health states via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. The means, standard deviations, and median utility weights of the six health states were estimated by valuation method.ResultsThe two valuation methods of the scenarios yielded the same mean utility rankings. Pulmonary nodule received the highest rank (VAS, 0.66 and SG, 0.83), whereas Stage 4 was assigned the lowest rank (VAS, 0.09 and SG, 0.31). For all health states, the mean utility weights calculated using the SG were greater than those calculated using the VAS. The differences between the utility weights obtained using the two valuation methods ranged from 0.14 (Stage I) to 0.22 (Stage IV). The two approaches tended to yield larger differences for more severe stages.ConclusionsThis study determined utilities for squamous cell lung cancer that will be useful for estimating the burden of lung cancer and for conducting economic evaluations of lung cancer interventions.
| S-EPMC6225686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe disability weight is an essential factor to estimate the healthy time that is lost due to living with a certain state of illness. A 2014 review showed a considerable variation in methods used to derive disability weights. Since then, several sets of disability weights have been developed. This systematic review aimed to provide an updated and comparative overview of the methodological design choices and surveying techniques that have been used in disability weights measurement studies and how they evolved over time.MethodsA literature search was conducted in multiple international databases (early-1990 to mid-2021). Records were screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. The quality of the included disability weights measurement studies was assessed using the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies (CREATE) instrument. Studies were collated by characteristics and methodological design approaches. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and discussed with a second.ResultsForty-six unique disability weights measurement studies met our eligibility criteria. More than half (n = 27; 59%) of the identified studies assessed disability weights for multiple ill-health outcomes. Thirty studies (65%) described the health states using disease-specific descriptions or a combination of a disease-specific descriptions and generic-preference instruments. The percentage of studies obtaining health preferences from a population-based panel increased from 14% (2004-2011) to 32% (2012-2021). None of the disability weight studies published in the past 10 years used the annual profile approach. Most studies performed panel-meetings to obtain disability weights data.ConclusionsOur review reveals that a methodological uniformity between national and GBD disability weights studies increased, especially from 2010 onwards. Over years, more studies used disease-specific health state descriptions in line with those of the GBD study, panel from general populations, and data from web-based surveys and/or household surveys. There is, however, a wide variation in valuation techniques that were used to derive disability weights at national-level and that persisted over time.
| S-EPMC8944058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach.MethodsWe surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004.Findings13,902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16,328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously.InterpretationThis study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC10782811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe disability weight (DW) quantifies the severity of health states from disease sequela and is a pivotal parameter for disease burden calculation. We conducted a national and subnational DW measurement in China.MethodsIn 2020-2021, we conducted a web-based survey to assess DWs for 206 health states in 31 Chinese provinces targeting health workers via professional networks. We fielded questions of paired comparison (PC) and population health equivalence (PHE). The PC data were analysed by probit regression analysis, and the regression results were anchored by results from the PHE responses on the DW scale between 0 (no loss of health) and 1 (health loss equivalent to death).FindingsWe used PC responses from 468,541 respondents to estimate DWs of health states. Eight of 11 domains of health had significantly negative coefficients in the regression of the difference between Chinese and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) DWs, suggesting lower DW values for health states with mention of these domains in their lay description. We noted considerable heterogeneity within domains, however. After applying these Chinese DWs to the 2019 GBD estimates for China, total years lived with disability (YLDs) increased by 14·9% to 177 million despite lower estimates for musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. The lower estimates of YLDs for these conditions were more than offset by higher estimates of common, low-severity conditions.InterpretationThe differences between the GBD and Chinese DWs suggest that there might be some contextual factors influencing the valuation of health states. While the reduced estimates for mental disorders, alcohol use disorder, and dementia could hint at a culturally different valuation of these conditions in China, the much greater shifts in YLDs from low-severity conditions more likely reflects methodological difficulty to distinguish between health states that vary a little in absolute DW value but a lot in relative terms.FundingThis work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 82173626], the National Key Research and Development Program of China [grant numbers 2018YFC1315302], Wuhan Medical Research Program of Joint Fund of Hubei Health Committee [grant number WJ2019H304], and Ningxia Natural Science Foundation Project [grant number 2020AAC03436].
| S-EPMC9335373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We estimated the disability weights in the South Korean population by using a paired comparison-only model wherein 'full health' and 'being dead' were included as anchor points, without resorting to a cardinal method, such as person trade-off. The study was conducted via 2 types of survey: a household survey involving computer-assisted face-to-face interviews and a web-based survey (similar to that of the GBD 2010 disability weight study). With regard to the valuation methods, paired comparison, visual analogue scale (VAS), and standard gamble (SG) were used in the household survey, whereas paired comparison and population health equivalence (PHE) were used in the web-based survey. Accordingly, we described a total of 258 health states, with 'full health' and 'being dead' designated as anchor points. In the analysis, 4 models were considered: a paired comparison-only model; hybrid model between paired comparison and PHE; VAS model; and SG model. A total of 2,728 and 3,188 individuals participated in the household and web-based survey, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the disability weights of health states between the GBD 2010 study and the current models were 0.802 for Model 2, 0.796 for Model 1, 0.681 for Model 3, and 0.574 for Model 4 (all P-values<0.001). The discrimination of values according to health state severity was most suitable in Model 1. Based on these results, the paired comparison-only model was selected as the best model for estimating disability weights in South Korea, and for maintaining simplicity in the analysis. Thus, disability weights can be more easily estimated by using paired comparison alone, with 'full health' and 'being dead' as one of the health states. As noted in our study, we believe that additional evidence regarding the universality of disability weight can be observed by using a simplified methodology of estimating disability weights.
| S-EPMC5015913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Australian burden of disease estimates appeared inconsistent with the reported repetitive and ubiquitous nature of dental problems. The aims of the study were to measure the nature, severity and duration of symptoms for specific oral conditions, and calculate disability weights from these measures. METHODS: Data were collected in 2001-02 from a random sample of South Australian dentists using mailed self-complete questionnaires. Dentists recorded the diagnosis of dental problems and provided patients with self-complete questionnaires to record the nature, severity and duration of symptoms using the EuroQol instrument. Data were available from 378 dentists (response rate = 60%). RESULTS: Disability weights were highest for pulpal infection (0.069), caries (0.044) and dentinal sensitivity (0.040), followed by denture problems (0.026), periodontal disease (0.023), failed restorations (0.019), tooth fractures (0.014) and tooth wear (0.011). Aesthetic problems had a low disability weight (0.002), and both recall/maintenance care and oral hygiene had adjusted weights of zero. CONCLUSIONS: Disability weights for caries (0.044), periodontal disease (0.023) and denture problems (0.026) in this study were higher than comparable oral health conditions in the Australian Burden of Disease and Injury Study (0.005 for caries involving a filling and 0.014 for caries involving an extraction, 0.007 for periodontal disease, and 0.004 for edentulism). A range of common problems such as pulpal infection, failed restorations and tooth fracture that were not included in the Australian Burden of Disease and Injury Study had relatively high disability weights. The inclusion of a fuller range of oral health problems along with revised disability weights would result in oral health accounting for a larger amount of disability than originally estimated.
| S-EPMC517729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of the Chinese burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weight (DW) that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 DW study indicates that it is limited by lack of geographic variation in DW data and by the current measurement methodology. We aim to estimate DW for a set of health states from major diseases in the Wuhan population.MethodsWe conducted the DW measurement study for 206 health states through a household survey with computer-assisted face-to-face interviews and a web-based survey. Based on GBD 2013 DW study, paired comparison (PC) and Population health equivalence (PHE) method was used and different PC/PHE questions were randomly assigned to each respondent. In statistical analysis, the PC data was analyzed by probit regression. The probit regression results will be anchored by results from the PHE data analyzed by interval regression on the DW scale units between 0 (no loss of health) and 1 (loss equivalent to death).ResultsA total of 2610 and 3140 individuals were included in the household and web-based survey, respectively. The results from the total pooled data showed health state "mild anemia" (DW = 0.005, 95% UI 0.000-0.027) or "allergic rhinitis (hay fever)" (0.005, 95% UI 0.000-0.029) had the lowest DW and "heroin and other opioid dependence, severe" had the highest DW (0.699, 95% UI 0.579-0.827). A high correlation coefficient (Pearson's r = 0.876; P < 0.001) for DWs of same health states was observed between Wuhan's survey and GBD 2013 DW survey. Health states referred to mental symptom, fatigue, and the residual category of other physical symptoms were statistically significantly associated with a lower Wuhan's DWs than the GBD's DWs. Health states with disfigurement and substance use symptom had a higher DW in Wuhan population than the GBD 2013 study.ConclusionsThis set of DWs could be used to calculate local diseases burden for health policy-decision in Wuhan population. The DW differences between the GBD's survey and Wuhan's survey suggest that there might be some contextual or culture factors influencing assessment on the severity of diseases.
| S-EPMC10157574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA universal set of disability weights(DWs) is mainly based on the survey of North America, Australia and Europe, whereas the participants in Asia was limited. The debate hasn't yet settled whether a universal DW is desirable or useful.The focus of the debate is its representativenes-s.After all, the DWs come from people's subjective evaluation of pain, and they may vary according to cultural background.The differences of the DWs could have implications for the magnitude or ranking of disease burdens.The DWs of Anhui Province has not been completely presented.This paper aims to obtain the DWs suitable for the general population of Anhui Province of China, and attempts to explore the differences between different DWs by comparing the DWs with the similar-cultural background and the DWs with cross-cultural background.MethodsA web-based survey was conducted to estimate the DWs for 206 health states of Anhui province in 2020. Paired comparison (PC) data were analyzed and anchored by probit regression and fitting loess model. We compared the DWs in Anhui with other provinces in China and those in Global burden of disease (GBD) and Japan.ResultsCompared with Anhui province, the proportion of health states which showed 2 times or more differences ranged from 1.94% (Henan) to 11.17% (Sichuan) in China and domestic provinces. It was 19.88% in Japan and 21.51% in GBD 2013 respectively. In Asian countries or regions, most of the health states with top 15 DWs belonged to the category of mental, behavioral, and substance use disorders. But in GBD, most were infectious diseases and cancer. The differences of DWs in neighboring provinces were smaller than other geographically distant provinces or countries.ConclusionPC responses were largely consistent across very distinct settings,but the exceptions do need to be faced squarely.The differences of DWs among similar-cultural regions were smaller than cross-cultural regions. There is an urgent need for relevant gold standards.
| S-EPMC9999537 | biostudies-literature