Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Preference weights for the spectrum of alcohol use in the U.S. Population.

Chavez LJ, Bradley K, Tefft N, Liu CF, Hebert P, Devine B. Preference weights for the spectrum of alcohol use in the U.S. Population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2016 Apr 1; 161:206-13.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost-utility of population-based alcohol interventions. One barrier to research has been the lack of preference weights needed to calculate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Preference weights can be estimated from measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this study was to describe preference weights for the full spectrum of alcohol use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included participants in both the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1999-2002) and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; 2000-2003). The AUDIT-C alcohol screen was derived from NHIS with scores categorized into 6 groups (0,1-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-12 points), ranging from nondrinking (0) to very severe unhealthy alcohol use (10-12). AUDIT-C scores were mapped to EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights using the linked datasets and analyses adjusted for demographics. RESULTS: Among 17,440 participants, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights were 0.82 (95% CI 0.82-0.83) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.79-0.80), respectively. Adjusted EQ-5D preference weights for nondrinking (0.80; 95% CI 0.79-0.81) and moderate unhealthy drinking (0.85; 95% CI 0.84-0.86) were significantly different from low-risk drinking (0.83; 95% CI 0.83-0.84), but no other differences were significant. Results for the SF-6D were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights for various alcohol use categories in a representative U.S. adult sample. However, neither measure suggested meaningful differences in HRQOL based on AUDIT-C categories. Self-reported alcohol consumption may not be associated with preference weights or generic instruments may not capture alcohol-related differences in HRQOL.





Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.