Literature DB >> 23329427

Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Michela Tinelli1, Mandy Ryan, Christine Bond, Anthony Scott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The generic health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) utility measures the EQ-5D and SF-6D are both commonly used to inform healthcare policy developments. However, their application to pharmacy practice is limited and the optimal method to inform policy developments is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to test the sensitivity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D within pharmacy when measuring whether changes in health status or other co-variates at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention at follow-up. A further objective was to consider the implications of the findings for pharmacy research and policy.
METHODS: The EQ-5D and SF-6D utility measures were employed within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community pharmacy-led medicines management for patients with coronary heart disease. The intervention covered a baseline visit with the potential for follow-up. Simultaneous quantile regression assessed the impact of the intervention on both EQ-5D and SF-6D measures at follow-up, controlling for baseline health, appropriateness of treatment, personal characteristics and self-reported satisfaction.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in HR-QOL across the intervention and control groups at follow-up was reported for either measure. Increased health gain was however associated with the baseline utility score (with the EQ-5D more sensitive for those in worse health) and the appropriateness of treatment, but not patient characteristics or self-reported satisfaction.
CONCLUSION: Neither generic measure detected a gain in HR-QOL as a result of the introduction of an innovative pharmacy-based service. This finding supports other work in the area of pharmacy, where health gains have not changed following interventions. Disease-specific utility measures should be investigated as an alternative to generic approaches such as the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Given that the RCT found an increase in self-reported satisfaction, broader measures of benefit that value patient experiences, such as contingent valuation and discrete-choice experiments, should also be considered in pharmacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23329427     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-012-0012-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  61 in total

Review 1.  Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care.

Authors:  J A Olsen; R D Smith
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W Furlong; D Feeny; M Boyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Louise Longworth
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2005-09

5.  How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?

Authors:  Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 19.103

6.  Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins.

Authors:  J A Michaels; J E Brazier; W B Campbell; J B MacIntyre; S J Palfreyman; J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status.

Authors:  Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Yannis Tountas; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-11-29       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Home-based medication review in a high risk elderly population in primary care--the POLYMED randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lenaghan; Richard Holland; Alison Brooks
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 10.668

Review 10.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Mandy Ryan; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-19       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  5 in total

1.  Socio-demographic, clinical characteristics and utilization of mental health care services associated with SF-6D utility scores in patients with mental disorders: contributions of the quantile regression.

Authors:  Amélie Prigent; Blaise Kamendje-Tchokobou; Karine Chevreul
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  On the use and interpretation of quantile regression in quality-of-life research.

Authors:  Leonardo Koeser; Paul McCrone
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Stirling Bryan; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The authors' reply to Koeser and McCrone: "on the use and interpretation of quantile regression in quality-of-life research".

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Anthony Scott; Janelle Seymour; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Paul McNamee
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Using QALYs in telehealth evaluations: a systematic review of methodology and transparency.

Authors:  Trine S Bergmo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.