BACKGROUND: The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis includes the EQ-5D; however, this is often not implemented in the area of mental health. AIMS: To assess the appropriateness of using the EQ-5D to measure improvements in mental health. METHOD: Seventy-seven participants with psychosis were rated according to the EQ-5D and seven measures of mental health at both pre- and post-intervention. To assess construct validity we compared the (pre-intervention) mean EQ-5D scores for those with milder and more severe scores, according to each of the seven measures. To assess responsiveness we estimated the mean EQ-5D change score for those who improved (post-intervention), according to each of the measures. RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D score was more favourable for both those with milder scores (mean difference: 0.044 to 0.301) and for those who improved post-intervention (mean change: 0.029 to 0.117). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests the EQ-5D should be considered for use in future cost-effectiveness studies in the area of mental health.
BACKGROUND: The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis includes the EQ-5D; however, this is often not implemented in the area of mental health. AIMS: To assess the appropriateness of using the EQ-5D to measure improvements in mental health. METHOD: Seventy-seven participants with psychosis were rated according to the EQ-5D and seven measures of mental health at both pre- and post-intervention. To assess construct validity we compared the (pre-intervention) mean EQ-5D scores for those with milder and more severe scores, according to each of the seven measures. To assess responsiveness we estimated the mean EQ-5D change score for those who improved (post-intervention), according to each of the measures. RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D score was more favourable for both those with milder scores (mean difference: 0.044 to 0.301) and for those who improved post-intervention (mean change: 0.029 to 0.117). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests the EQ-5D should be considered for use in future cost-effectiveness studies in the area of mental health.
Authors: Anju Devianee Keetharuth; Elizabeth Taylor Buck; Catherine Acquadro; Katrin Conway; Janice Connell; Michael Barkham; Jill Carlton; Thomas Ricketts; Rosemary Barber; John Brazier Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anne B Koopmans; Daphne van Hoeken; Diana E Clarke; David J Vinkers; Peter N van Harten; Hans W Hoek Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Michael Doherty; Claire Jenkinson; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2009-07-17
Authors: Hao Luo; Alice Hirdes; Jyrki Heikkilä; Kathleen De Cuyper; Chantal Van Audenhove; Margaret Saari; John P Hirdes Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Paul A J M de Bont; David P G van den Berg; Berber M van der Vleugel; Carlijn de Roos; Cornelis L Mulder; Eni S Becker; Ad de Jongh; Mark van der Gaag; Agnes van Minnen Journal: Trials Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 2.279