Plain Language Summary

What is it about?

Health inequality between socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups is a major concern for healthcare systems. Understanding the magnitude of these inequalities helps monitor trends, compare countries, and evaluate policies aimed at reducing health disparities. Researchers use summary measures combining information about how long people live and their health during life, but different measurement approaches produce vastly different inequality estimates. This study addresses the discrepancy between binary health measures (disability or good health status) versus continuous measures (health-related quality of life scores). The researchers propose a simple adjustment to make binary measures comparable to continuous measures, reducing confusion when interpreting health inequality statistics and improving equity weighting in distributional cost-effectiveness analysis.

How was the research conducted?

Researchers compared different methods of adjusting life expectancy for health status using identical population data. They used 2018 Health Survey for England data combined with mortality statistics to calculate health-adjusted life expectancy across 5 neighborhood deprivation groups. Regression analyses predicted 3 health measures—continuous health-related quality of life scores, disability-free status, and good health status—based on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. These predictions were combined with life tables using the Sullivan method to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy, and healthy life expectancy for each deprivation group, isolating the effect of measurement choice.

What were the results?

Binary health measures produced larger inequality estimates than continuous measures. The quality-adjusted life expectancy gap between most and least deprived groups was 11.25 years, compared to 16.00 years for disability-free life expectancy and 18.53 years for healthy life expectancy. These differences dramatically affected equity weighting, with binary measures producing weights approximately 4 times higher than continuous measures. The health-related quality of life burden of disability was consistently greater for the most deprived groups, reflecting both higher disability rates and more severe health problems. The proposed adjustment almost completely eliminated the differences between the binary and continuous measures in the worked example.

Why are the results important?

The choice between binary and continuous health measures dramatically alters perceptions of health inequality, potentially affecting policy priorities and resource allocation. The proposed adjustment enables more accurate comparisons when detailed health-related quality of life data are unavailable. Healthcare decision makers and researchers using distributional cost-effectiveness analysis would benefit by avoiding overestimation of health benefits for disadvantaged groups. Long-term impacts include more consistent international health inequality comparisons and better-informed policy decisions balancing total population health improvement against reducing inequalities.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study?

The main strength is using a single data source and consistent methodology to isolate measurement choice effects. The main limitation is that the proposed adjustment has only been tested using England 2018 data, and its generalizability remains unknown. Future research should replicate this work using data from multiple countries and time periods to validate the adjustment method and explore how different health-related quality of life instruments compare.

^{Note: This content was created with assistance from artificial intelligence (AI) and has been reviewed and edited by ISPOR staff. For more information or for inquiries on ISPOR’s AI policy, click here or contact us at info@ispor.org.}