OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate utility values in laypeople and productivity loss for women with breast cancer in Sweden and the Netherlands. METHODS: To capture utilities, validated health state vignettes were used, which were translated into Dutch and Swedish. They described progressive disease, stable disease, and 7 grade 3/4 adverse events. One hundred members of the general public in each country rated the states using the visual analog scale and time trade-off method. To assess productivity, women who had recently completed or were currently receiving treatment for early or advanced breast cancer (the Netherlands, n = 161; Sweden, n = 52) completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire. Data were analyzed using means (SD). RESULTS: The utility study showed that the Swedish sample rated progressive and stable disease (mean, 0.61 [0.07] and 0.81 [0.05], respectively) higher than did the Dutch sample (0.49 [0.06] and 0.69 [0.05]). The health states incorporating the toxicities in both countries produced similar mean scores. Results of the WPAI-GH showed that those currently receiving treatment reported productivity reductions of 69% (the Netherlands) and 72% (Sweden); those who had recently completed therapy reported reductions of 41% (the Netherlands) and 40% (Sweden). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the utility scores between the 2 countries underline the importance of capturing country-specific values. The significant impact of adverse events on health-related quality of life was also highlighted. The WPAI-GH results demonstrated how the negative impact of breast cancer on productivity persists after women have completed their treatment.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate utility values in laypeople and productivity loss for women with breast cancer in Sweden and the Netherlands. METHODS: To capture utilities, validated health state vignettes were used, which were translated into Dutch and Swedish. They described progressive disease, stable disease, and 7 grade 3/4 adverse events. One hundred members of the general public in each country rated the states using the visual analog scale and time trade-off method. To assess productivity, women who had recently completed or were currently receiving treatment for early or advanced breast cancer (the Netherlands, n = 161; Sweden, n = 52) completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire. Data were analyzed using means (SD). RESULTS: The utility study showed that the Swedish sample rated progressive and stable disease (mean, 0.61 [0.07] and 0.81 [0.05], respectively) higher than did the Dutch sample (0.49 [0.06] and 0.69 [0.05]). The health states incorporating the toxicities in both countries produced similar mean scores. Results of the WPAI-GH showed that those currently receiving treatment reported productivity reductions of 69% (the Netherlands) and 72% (Sweden); those who had recently completed therapy reported reductions of 41% (the Netherlands) and 40% (Sweden). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the utility scores between the 2 countries underline the importance of capturing country-specific values. The significant impact of adverse events on health-related quality of life was also highlighted. The WPAI-GH results demonstrated how the negative impact of breast cancer on productivity persists after women have completed their treatment.
Authors: Janie M Lee; Kathryn P Lowry; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; J Shannon Swan; Tina Motazedi; Elkan F Halpern; Anna N A Tosteson; G Scott Gazelle; Karen Donelan Journal: Breast Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Avery A Rizio; Menaka Bhor; Xiaochen Lin; Kristen L McCausland; Michelle K White; Jincy Paulose; Savita Nandal; Rashid I Halloway; Lanetta Bronté-Hall Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mark Verrill; Andrew M Wardley; Jenny Retzler; Adam B Smith; Catherine Bottomley; Sorcha Ní Dhochartaigh; Irwin Tran; Iain Leslie; Peter Schmid Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Kelly D Johnson; Susan K Brenneman; Chrisann Newransky; Seth Sheffler-Collins; Laura K Becker; Angela Belland; Camilo J Acosta Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Manraj N Kaur; Jiajun Yan; Anne F Klassen; Justin P David; Dilshan Pieris; Manraj Sharma; Louise Bordeleau; Feng Xie Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 2.749