Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지

Disability Weights for Diseases in Korea

한국인 질병의 장애가중치 측정 및 신뢰도 평가

  • Yoon, Seok-Jun (Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Do, Young-Kyung (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kwon, Young-Hoon (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Yup (Department of Public Health, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, Ki-Dong (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Ik (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Young-Soo (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Kyu (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • 윤석준 (고려대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 도영경 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 권영훈 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 김창엽 (서울대학교 보건대학원) ;
  • 박기동 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 김용익 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 신영수 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 이중규 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실)
  • Published : 2003.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives : This study aimed to develop an evaluation protocol of disability weights using person trade-off, and to test the reliability of the developed protocol in a Korean context. Methods : To develop the valuation protocol, the Global Burden of Disease(GBD) and the Dutch studies were replicated and modified. Sixteen indicator conditions were selected from the Korean version of disease classification, which was based on that of the GBD Study, and the person trade-off method referred to the Dutch method. Results : The disability weights were valued in a two step panel sfudy. The first step was a carefully designed group process by three panels, using person trade-off to establish the disability weights for sixteen selected indicator conditions. The second step consisted of interpolation of the remaining diseases, on a disability scale, by the individual members of three panels. The members of three panels were all medical doctors, with sufficient knowledge of the consequences of a broad variety of diseases. The internal consistency of the Korean disability weights was satisfactory. Considerable agreement existed within each panel and among the panels. Conclusions : It was feasible to use a modified evaluation protocol from those used in GBD and Dutch studies, This would provide a rational basis for an international comparative study of disability weights.

Keywords

References

  1. 한국보건의료관리연구원. 질병부담 추정에 관한기초연구 1998
  2. 최용준. 건강생활년을 이용한 우리 나라 주요 암 질환의 질병부담 측정. 서울대학교 대학원 의학석사 학위논문. 2002
  3. Nord E. The PTO approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 201-208 https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500302
  4. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The Global Burden of Disease: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projectedto 2020.WHO. 1996
  5. Mathers CD, Vos T, Lopez AD, Salomon J, Ezzati M. National Burden of Disease Studies: A Practical Guide, Edition 2.0. WHO. 2001
  6. Stoudhard MEA. Disability weights for diseases: A modified protocol and results for a Western European region. Eur J Public Health 2000; 10: 24-30 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/10.1.24
  7. Stoudhard MEA, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, Kramers PGN, van de Water HPA, Gunning-Schepers LJ, van de Maas PJ. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. 1997
  8. Yoon SJ, Kwon YD, Kim BY. Estimate the disability weight of major cancers in Korea using Delphi methods. Korea J Prev Med 2000; 33(4): 409-414 (Korean)
  9. 조희숙，성주헌，최인정，이태진，김재용，송윤미，정은경，신해림，신영수. 한국질병체계 분류에 의한 사망손실연수의 평가. 대한예방의학회 추계학술대회 2001
  10. 한국질병부담측정 연구팀. 질병부담연구 및 보건의료체계성과에 대한 세미나. 2002년 3월
  11. 김성숙，김양분. 일반화가능도 이론. 교육과학사; 2001(7-59쪽)
  12. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measure-ment Scale : A practical guide to their development and use, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 104-143
  13. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for Measuring Health-State Preferences I: Measurement Strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(4): 345-354 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90039-5
  14. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for Measuring Health-State Preferences II : Scaling Methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(5): 459-471 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4
  15. Kaplan RM, Ernst JA. Do Category Rating Scales Produce Biased Preference Weights for a Health Index. Med Care 1983; 21: 193-207 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198302000-00007
  16. Torrance GW. Measurement of Health-State Utilities for Economic Appraisal: a Review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2
  17. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for Measuring Levels of Well-Being for a Health Status Index. Health Serv Res 1973; 8(3): 228-245
  18. Essink-Bot ML, Pereira J, Packer C, Schwarzinger M, Burstrom K, the European Disability Weights Group. Cross-national comparability of burden of disease estimates:the European Disability Weights Project. Bull World Health Organ 2002; 80(8): 644-652
  19. Ustun TB, Rehm'J, Chatterji S, Saxena S, Trotter R, Room R, Bickenbach J and the WHO/NIH Joint Project CAR Study Group. Multiple-informant ranking of the disabling effects of different health conditions in 14 countries. Lancet 1999 Jul 10;354(9173): 111-115 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07507-2
  20. Anand S, Hanson K. Disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 685-702 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(97)00005-2
  21. Arnesen T, Nord E. The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ 1999; 319: 1423-1425 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1423
  22. Mansley EC, Elbasha EH. Preferences and person trade-offs: forcing consistency or inconsistency in health-related quality of life measures? Health Econ 2003; 12: 187-198 https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.707
  23. European Disability Weights Study. Facilitator instructions and maual. 2000
  24. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for Measuring Health-State Preferences lll : Population and Context Effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(6): 585-592 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90155-8
  25. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for Measuring Health-State Preferences V : Progress and Research Agenda. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(7): 675-685 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90011-5
  26. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal Value, the Person Trade-Off, and the Dilemma of Whose Values to Measure for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9: 127-136 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<127::AID-HEC500>3.0.CO;2-Y
  27. Cronbach LJ, Gieser GC, Nanda H, Rajartnam N. The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1972. p. 1-14
  28. Keppel G. Design and Analysis: A Researcher' s Handbook, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1991. p. 188-202
  29. Crick JE, Brennan RL. GENOVA: A Generalized Analysis of Variance System(FORTRAN IV computer program and manual). Dochester, Mass.: Computer Facilities, University of Massachusetts at Boston, 1982