Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

High prevalence mental disorders including depression, anxiety and substance use disorders are associated with high economic and disease burden. However, there is little information regarding the health state utility values of such disorders according to their clinical severity using comparable instruments across all disorders. This study reports utility values for high prevalence mental disorders using data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB).

Methods

Utility values were derived from the AQoL-4D and analysed by disorder classification (affective only (AD), anxiety-related only (ANX), substance use only (SUB) plus four comorbidity groups), severity level (mild, moderate, severe), symptom recency (reported in the past 30 days), and comorbidity (combination of disorders). The adjusted Wald test was applied to detect statistically significant differences of weighted means and the magnitude of difference between groups was presented as a modified Cohen’s d.

Results

In total, 1526 individuals met criteria for a 12-month mental disorder. The mean utility value was 0.67 (SD = 0.27), with lower utility values associated with higher severity levels and some comorbidities. Utility values for AD, ANX and SUB were 0.64 (SD = 0.25), 0.71 (SD = 0.25) and 0.81 (SD = 0.19), respectively. No differences in utility values were observed between disorders within disorder groups. Utility values were significantly lower among people with recent symptoms (within past 30 days) than those without; when examined by diagnostic group, this pattern held for people with SUB, but not for people with ANX or AD.

Conclusions

Health state utility values of people with high prevalence mental disorders differ significantly by severity level, number of mental health comorbidities and the recency of symptoms, which provide new insights on the burden associated with high prevalence mental disorders in Australia. The derived utility values can be used to populate future economic models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits fo economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Canberra, ACT: Australian Governmnet - Department of Health and Ageing.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Richardson, J. R., Peacock, S. J., Hawthorne, G., Iezzi, A., Elsworth, G., & Day, N. A. (2012). Construction of the descriptive system for the Assessment of Quality of Life AQoL-6D utility instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient, 7, 85–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. E. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Whitehurst, D. G., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value in Health, 17, 570–577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohiuddin, S., & Payne, K. (2014). Utility values for adults with unipolar depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Decision Making, 34, 666–685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Revicki, D. A., Brandenburg, N., Matza, L., Hornbrook, M. C., & Feeny, D. (2008). Health-related quality of life and utilities in primary-care patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Quality of Life Research, 17, 1285–1294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Revicki, D. A., Hanlon, J., Martin, S., Gyulai, L., Nassir Ghaemi, S., Lynch, F., et al. (2005). Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. Journal of Affective Disorders, 87, 203–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Revicki, D. A., & Wood, M. (1998). Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: Differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. Journal of Affective Disorders, 48, 25–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2013). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37, 7–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Browne, M. A., Andrews, G., & Whiteford, H. (2007). National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Methods and key findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 594–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Users’ guide, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4327.0Main%20Features12007.

  19. Slade, J., Teeson, W., & Burgess, P. (2009). The mental health of Australians 2: Report on the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Richardson, J., Hawthorne, G., Day, N. A., Osborne, R., & McNeil, H. (1998). Difficulty with life and death: Methodological issues and results from the utility scaling of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument. Working paper 70. Melbourne, VIC: The Centre for Health Program Evaluation (CHPE), Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., et al. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rehm, J., Üstün, T. B., Saxena, S., Nelson, C. B., Chatterji, S., Ivis, F., et al. (1999). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ferguson, C. J.. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40, 532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 136–142.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roberts, J., Lenton, P., Keetharuth, A. D., & Brazier, J. (2014). Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: Results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15, 1229–1236.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Peasgood, T., & Brazier, J. (2015). Is meta-analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values? Pharmacoeconomics, 33, 1101–1105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sonntag, M., Konig, H. H., & Konnopka, A. (2013). The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics, 31, 1131–1154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2045–2053.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making, 36, 147–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205, 390–397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Herrman, H., Hawthorne, G., & Thomas, R. (2002). Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37, 510–518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). Public recognition of mental disorders and beliefs about treatment: Changes in Australia over 16 years. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 419–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pilkington, P. D., Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2013). The Australian public’s beliefs about the causes of depression: Associated factors and changes over 16 years. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150, 356–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). Stigmatising attitudes towards people with mental disorders: Changes in Australia over 8 years. Psychiatry Research, 197, 302–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for access to the 2007 NSMHWB. The 2007 NSMHWB was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, and conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Social Development, Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

    Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Lidia Engel, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Anne Magnus & Mary Lou Chatterton

  2. School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia

    Meredith Harris

  3. Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, 4076, Australia

    Meredith Harris

Authors
  1. Cathrine Mihalopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lidia Engel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Long Khanh-Dao Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Magnus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meredith Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mary Lou Chatterton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathrine Mihalopoulos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study was conducted without financial support and the authors report no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihalopoulos, C., Engel, L., Le, L.KD. et al. Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Qual Life Res 27, 1815–1825 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1843-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1843-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation