The Estimation of Health State Utility Values for Psychological Distress in Australia: Implications for Future Economic Evaluations

Syed Afroz Keramat; Tracy Comans; Rabeya Basri; Daniel Bailey; Deborah Brooks; Nadeeka N Dissanayaka

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.002

The Estimation of Health State Utility Values for Psychological Distress in Australia: Implications for Future Economic Evaluations

Value Health. 2024 Dec 24:S1098-3015(24)06793-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.002. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Syed Afroz Keramat¹, Tracy Comans², Rabeya Basri³, Daniel Bailey², Deborah Brooks⁴, Nadeeka N Dissanayaka⁴

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: s.keramat@uq.edu.au.
² Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
³ Department of Economics, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
⁴ Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

PMID: 39725009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.002

Abstract

Objectives: Psychological distress is a state of emotional suffering and discomfort that often manifests as anxiety, depression, or other mental health symptoms, impairing daily functioning and hindering concentration, relationships, and work or school performance. We aimed to examine the disutility associated with psychological distress.

Methods: We used longitudinal data obtained from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. We measured health state utility values (HSUVs) using the Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D) Utility Index and psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. We used longitudinal fixed-effects regression model to examine the effects of psychological distress on HSUVs.

Results: The results from fixed-effects panel regression models indicate a negative effect of psychological distress on HSUVs. We found that moderate psychological distress (β = -0.057, 95% CI -0.059 to -0.055) and high psychological distress (β = -0.123, 95% CI -0.126 to -0.121) led to a significant reduction in HSUVs. These findings hold across different subsamples, such as age, gender, and race.

Conclusions: By quantifying the reduction in HSUVs due to psychological distress, our study provides valuable data for future economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. The evidence generated from future economic evaluations will assist policymakers in making informed decisions about the cost-effective interventions for treating psychological distress.

Keywords: Australia; SF-6D utility index; health state utility; psychological distress.