Health utilities for controlled and uncontrolled chronic hand eczema in healthcare employees.

BACKGROUND: Health utilities provide a universally applicable method for measuring the relative preferences or values of specific health states. Health economic studies use health utilities to estimate disease burden and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Chronic hand eczema (CHE) affects many individuals and adversely affects work productivity. Health utilities for CHE from the perspective of healthcare professionals are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess health utilities for CHE from the perspectives of employees in the healthcare sector and affected patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with volunteers from the healthcare sector (n = 126) and patients (n = 32) was conducted to establish health utilities (ranging from 1 = perfect health to 0 = death) for mild and severe CHE. RESULTS: The median health utilities of the healthy volunteers derived with the time trade-off method were 0.97 (mean: 0.92) for mild CHE and 0.77 (mean: 0.75) for severe CHE. The median health utilities for mild and severe CHE from the perspective of affected patients were 0.98 (mean: 0.91) and 0.82 (mean: 0.77), respectively. Differences in health utilities between the two study groups were not significant. CONCLUSION: CHE constitutes a considerable burden from the perspective of healthcare employees. Effective control of CHE constitutes an important public health goal.

Health utilities for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem, with a large potential for primary prevention. Health utilities (HU) reflect which proportion of their expected remaining life time individuals would hypothetically trade to be alleviated of a health condition of interest. A value of 0 means "prefer to die immediately", a value of 1 means "not willing to trade any life time". The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess HU for LBP patients and for healthy participants and to examine whether HU for LBP are useful indicators to substantiate preventive and therapeutic decision making. METHODS: Healthy participants (n = 126) and LBP patients (n = 32) were recruited mainly among the employees of a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Standardized LBP scenarios were presented to all participants and HU values were assessed using the time-trade-off method. RESULTS: Median HU for LBP were 0.90 (IQR 0.31) for participants and 0.93 (IQR 0.10) for LBP patients. Measurements were consistent across illness severity ratings with HU and with a visual analogue scale (VAS); in the healthy sample the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.23-1.00, F(1125) = 190, p < .001), in the patient sample the ICC was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.24-1.00, F(1,31) = 62, p < .001). 8% of participants reported HU of 1. There was no statistically significant relation between HU and age, income, or gender. CONCLUSION: On average, participants chose a 7 to 10% shorter life expectancy to avoid LBP, but almost 1 in 10 participants were not willing to trade any life years. The results indicate a certain stability of HU due to the comparability of HU ratings across patients and healthy participants, the measurement consistency when comparing VAS and HU ratings, and the lack of association between demographic variables and HU. This underlines the usefulness of HU for measuring illness severity in comparative health economics evaluations of preventive and therapeutic measures that address chronic LBP or other pain-characterized diseases. Future studies should focus on different LBP intensities and derive stratified HU that reflect the distribution of pain intensity in the population.