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

The Ozempic Paradox: How Spending Billions on Weight-Loss Drug Would Actually Reduce Overall Medicare Costs

Oct 14, 2025

Value in Health, the official journal of ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, announced today the publication of a landmark study by researchers at the University of Washington, Curta, Inc, and the University of North Carolina showing that broad Medicare coverage of semaglutide in diabetes, obesity, and liver disease could generate significant cost savings while delivering substantial health benefits to beneficiaries. The report, “Comprehensive Access to Semaglutide: Clinical and Economic Implications for Medicare,” was published in the October 2025 issue of Value in Health.

ISPOR Launches New Content on Whole Health

Sep 23, 2025

ISPOR announced that it has launched new website content on whole health, a topic of increasing importance as health systems across the globe grapple with providing the best possible healthcare to patients within constrained budgets.
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

×