Disabling pain is 10 times as intense as fully healthy life.
I was previously assuming disabling pain to be 100 times as intense as fully healthy life, i.e. 10 (= 100ā10) times as intense as I am assuming now. I updated after going through the studies discussed here, especially Wallenstein et. al (1980). According to this, it looks like disabling pain is 8.16 to 18.8 times as bad as annoying pain, whereas I was supposing disabling pain to be 1 k times as bad as annoying pain. Now I am assuming disabling pain is 100 times (= 10^2) as bad as annoying pain, which is still more intense than the suggested by the study, but not so much so.
My updated past cost-effectiveness of HSI is 431 DALY/ā$, which is 99.5 % (= 431ā433) of my previous value of 433 DALY/ā$. There is basically no change because the cost-effectiveness is approximately proportional to the intensity of excruciating pain, which I have not updated.
I was previously assuming disabling pain to be 100 times as intense as fully healthy life, i.e. 10 (= 100ā10) times as intense as I am assuming now. I updated after going through the studies discussed here, especially Wallenstein et. al (1980). According to this, it looks like disabling pain is 8.16 to 18.8 times as bad as annoying pain, whereas I was supposing disabling pain to be 1 k times as bad as annoying pain. Now I am assuming disabling pain is 100 times (= 10^2) as bad as annoying pain, which is still more intense than the suggested by the study, but not so much so.
My updated past cost-effectiveness of HSI is 431 DALY/ā$, which is 99.5 % (= 431ā433) of my previous value of 433 DALY/ā$. There is basically no change because the cost-effectiveness is approximately proportional to the intensity of excruciating pain, which I have not updated.