Comparing Different Methods for Measuring Benefits for Economic Evaluation

Published Dec 17, 2012
Sheffield, UK – A comparison of the benefits and costs of different treatments for various patient groups to inform resource allocation decisions requires a comparable measure of benefit. For resource allocation decisions, benefit is frequently measured using utility. However, it is not always appropriate or possible to use exactly the same method for generating utility values. A recent study, 'Comparison of generic, condition-specific and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer,' published in Value in Health, analyses the comparability of different methods that can be used to measure the utility of cancer treatments. These include a generic preference-based measure (EQ-5D), a condition-specific preference-based measure (EORTC-8D) and mapped utility values. Analyses are conducted using a dataset of patients with Multiple Myeloma cancer. The study found that the methods were broadly comparable, but there were some differences depending on which method was used. Says lead author, Dr. Donna Rowen, “Different methods can be used to generate utility values to inform resource allocation decisions, but little research has been conducted to determine the impact of using these methods on the results. This study compares three different methods of generating utility values, finding that the methods are broadly comparable but will produce some differences in the results.”

Value in Health (ISSN 1098-3015) publishes papers, concepts, and ideas that advance the field of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research as well as policy papers to help health care leaders make evidence-based decisions. The journal is published bi-monthly and has over 8,000 subscribers (clinicians, decision makers, and researchers worldwide).

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) is a nonprofit, international, educational and scientific organization that strives to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of health care resource use to improve health.

For more information: www.ispor.org

Related Stories

Promoting Fairness in Funding Decisions

Jun 24, 2026

Value in Health announced the publication of a special themed section of research papers that offer new tools to help health policy makers weigh fairness alongside cost-effectiveness when deciding which treatments and programs to fund.

Listening to Patients in the Real World

Jun 23, 2026

Value in Health, the official journal of ISPOR announced today the publication of an ISPOR Good Practices Report outlining 9 areas to strengthen the robustness, transparency, and feasibility of real-world patient-reported outcomes studies.

ISPOR Task Force Addresses Critical Gap in Surrogate Endpoint Guidance

May 28, 2026

Value in Health, announced the publication of an ISPOR Good Practices Report providing guidance on the use of surrogate endpoint evaluation methods in health technology assessment (HTA) decision making. The report, “Methods for Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints for HTA Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force,” was published in the May 2026 issue of Value in Health.
Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×