Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10705
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSanghera, S-
dc.contributor.authorFrew, E-
dc.contributor.authorGupta, JK-
dc.contributor.authorKai, J-
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, TE-
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-01T08:09:46Z-
dc.date.available2015-05-01T08:09:46Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationPharmacoEconomics, 2015en_US
dc.identifier.issn1170-7690-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10705-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectMenorrhagiaen_US
dc.subjectCost-benefit analysisen_US
dc.titleExploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagiaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0-
dc.relation.isPartOfPharmacoEconomics-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Clinical Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf581.49 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.