Literature DB >> 15725978

Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?

Jeffrey A Johnson1, Nan Luo, James W Shaw, Paul Kind, Stephen Joel Coons.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to compare directly elicited valuations for EQ-5D health states between the US and UK general adult populations.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 2 EQ-5D valuation studies where, using similar time trade-off protocols, values for 42 common health states were elicited from representative samples of the US and UK general adult populations. First, US and UK population mean valuations were estimated and compared for each health state. Second, random-effect models were used to compare the US and UK valuations while adjusting for known predictors of EQ-5D valuations (ie, age, sex, health state descriptors) and to investigate whether and how the valuations differ.
RESULTS: Population mean valuations of the 42 health states ranged from -0.38 to 0.88 for the United States and from -0.54 to 0.88 for the United Kingdom, with the US mean scores being numerically higher than the UK for 39 health states (mean difference: 0.11; range: -0.01 to 0.25). After adjusting for the main effects of known predictors, the average difference in valuations was 0.10 (P < 0.001). The magnitude of the difference in the US and UK valuations was not constant across EQ-5D health states; greater differences in valuations were present in health states characterized by extreme problems.
CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful differences exist in directly elicited TTO valuations of EQ-5D health states between the US and UK general populations. Therefore, EQ-5D index scores generated using valuations from the US general population should be used for studies aiming to reflect health state preferences of the US general public.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15725978     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  82 in total

1.  Population-level response shift: novel implications for research.

Authors:  Darren Lau; Calypse Agborsangaya; Fatima Al Sayah; Xiuyun Wu; Arto Ohinmaa; Jeffrey A Johnson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries.

Authors:  Raymond Oppong; Billingsley Kaambwa; Jacqueline Nuttall; Kerenza Hood; Richard D Smith; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-11-05

3.  New model to explain the EQ-5D VAS in patients who have undergone spinal fusion.

Authors:  Jorge Cortés; Juan F Blanco; David Pescador; Nuria Asensio; Claudio Castro; Juan Moncada Herrera
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.

Authors:  Richard D Hector; John P Anderson; Rosemarie C P Paul; Robert E Weiss; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Do Portuguese and UK health state values differ across valuation methods?

Authors:  Lara N Ferreira; Pedro L Ferreira; Donna Rowen; John E Brazier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments.

Authors:  Andrea Manca; Mark J Sculpher; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample.

Authors:  Patrick W Sullivan; Vahram Ghushchyan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  The SF36 Version 2: critical analyses of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne; Richard H Osborne; Anne Taylor; Jan Sansoni
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.