Literature DB >> 19490564

Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries.

Sebastian Bernert1, Ana Fernández, Josep Maria Haro, Hans-Helmut König, Jordi Alonso, Gemma Vilagut, Christine Sevilla-Dedieu, Ron de Graaf, Herbert Matschinger, Dirk Heider, Matthias C Angermeyer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) in three European countries.
METHODS: A representative survey of the noninstitutionalized population aged 18 and above was conducted in three European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, and Spain). A total of 11,932 respondents were interviewed using the EQ-5D self-classifier. Health state values based on community preferences (EQ-5D index) were calculated for each country using four different value sets: national value sets based on the time trade-off (TTO) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), the UK TTO-based value set and the European VAS-based value set. Linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the factors associated with different EQ-5D index scores depending on the value set used. Loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated for each country using the four value sets by multiplying the age and gender-specific values with the respective population size.
RESULTS: In all countries, means of all EQ-5D index scores were higher for men than women, and decreased with age. Index scores calculated using the national value set based on TTO were higher than those calculated using the UK TTO-based value set and, also, slightly higher than those calculated using the European VAS-based value set or the national value set based on the VAS. The mean loss of QALYs estimated for Germany per inhabitant varied between 0.062 (national value set based on TTO) and 0.094 (European VAS-based value set). In The Netherlands, the mean loss of QALYs per inhabitant ranged from 0.090 (national value set based on TTO) to 0.125 (national value set based on VAS). In Spain, the mean loss of QALYs per inhabitant ranged between 0.072 (national value set based on TTO) and 0.085 (European VAS-based value set).
CONCLUSIONS: In general, the differences among countries and valuations were rather small; nevertheless, some important variations should be taken into account while applying different valuation methods to the EQ-5D descriptive system. The associations between sociodemographic variables and health state scores remained the same across countries regardless of which value sets were used. Using different valuation methods lead to different QALY losses. To overcome this problem in international surveys aimed to compare health state scores or QALYs, it is advisable to use a single valuation method, making these scores comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19490564     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00509.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  38 in total

1.  Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights.

Authors:  Edimansyah Abdin; Mythily Subramaniam; Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar; Nan Luo; Siow Ann Chong
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-14       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.  Health state utility values and patient-reported outcomes before and after vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in an osteoporosis clinical trial.

Authors:  T Imai; S Tanaka; K Kawakami; T Miyazaki; H Hagino; M Shiraki
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal.

Authors:  Lara N Ferreira; Pedro L Ferreira; Luis N Pereira; Mark Oppe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Establishing disability weights from pairwise comparisons for a US burden of disease study.

Authors:  Jürgen Rehm; Ulrich Frick
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 4.035

6.  A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population.

Authors:  Reiner Leidl; Peter Reitmeir
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Health economic aspects of vertebral augmentation procedures.

Authors:  F Borgström; D P Beall; S Berven; S Boonen; S Christie; D F Kallmes; J A Kanis; G Olafsson; A J Singer; K Åkesson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Using the EuroQol EQ-5D in Swiss cancer patients, which value set should be applied?

Authors:  Klazien Matter-Walstra; Dirk Klingbiel; Thomas Szucs; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Matthias Schwenkglenks
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; László Gulácsi; Michael Drummond; Dominik Golicki; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Judit Simon; Elly A Stolk; Valentin Brodszky; Petra Baji; Jakub Závada; Guenka Petrova; Alexandru Rotar; Márta Péntek
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  What should we know about the person behind a TTO?

Authors:  Floortje van Nooten; Jan Busschbach; Michel van Agthoven; Job van Exel; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.