Literature DB >> 24438720

Health utility scores in Alzheimer's disease: differences based on calculation with American and Canadian preference weights.

Mark Oremus1, Jean-Eric Tarride2, Natasha Clayton2, Parminder Raina2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Health utility scores quantify health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). These scores are calculated by using preference weights derived from general population samples. We recruited persons with AD and their primary informal caregivers and examined differences in health utility scores calculated by using two sets of published preference weights.
METHODS: We recruited participants from nine clinics across Canada and administered the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire HRQOL instrument. We converted participants' EQ-5D questionnaire responses into two sets of health utility scores by using US and Canadian preference weights. We assessed agreement between sets by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Bland-Altman plots depicted individual-level differences between sets.
RESULTS: For 216 persons with AD and their caregivers, mean health utility scores were higher when calculated with US instead of Canadian preference weights (P < 0.0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) was 0.79 (0.05-0.93) in the persons with AD group and 0.83 (0.30-0.94) in the caregiver group. Ninety-five percent of the individual differences in utility score fell between -0.16 and 0.03 for persons with AD and -0.15 and 0.05 for caregivers. Forty-three percent of these differences exceeded a minimum clinically important threshold of 0.074.
CONCLUSIONS: In AD studies, researchers should calculate health utility scores by using preference weights obtained in the general population of their country of interest. Using weights from other countries' populations could bias the utilities and adversely affect the results of economic evaluations of AD treatments.
© 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Published by International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EQ-5D; health economics; health-related quality-of-life; quality-adjusted life-years

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24438720     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.009

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


  11 in total

1.  Spillover Effects on Caregivers' and Family Members' Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Lyndon P James; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  EQ-5D-derived health utilities and minimally important differences for chronic health conditions: 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada.

Authors:  Kate Tsiplova; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Tim Cooke; Feng Xie
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Associations between the Drug Burden Index, Potentially Inappropriate Medications and Quality of Life in Residential Aged Care.

Authors:  Stephanie L Harrison; Lisa Kouladjian O'Donnell; Clare E Bradley; Rachel Milte; Suzanne M Dyer; Emmanuel S Gnanamanickam; Enwu Liu; Sarah N Hilmer; Maria Crotty
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.923

4.  Impact of reconceptualization response shift on rating of quality of life over time among people with advanced cancer.

Authors:  Ala' S Aburub; B Gagnon; S Ahmed; A M Rodríguez; Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Using a personalized measure (Patient Generated Index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer.

Authors:  Ala' S Aburub; B Gagnon; A M Rodríguez; Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre.

Authors:  Hiten Naik; Doris Howell; Susie Su; Xin Qiu; M Catherine Brown; Ashlee Vennettilli; Margaret Irwin; Vivien Pat; Hannah Solomon; Tian Wang; Henrique Hon; Lawson Eng; Mary Mahler; Henry Thai; Valerie Ho; Wei Xu; Soo Jin Seung; Nicole Mittmann; Geoffrey Liu
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients.

Authors:  Aliasghar A Kiadaliri; Björn Eliasson; Ulf-G Gerdtham
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  A comparison of health utility scores calculated using United Kingdom and Canadian preference weights in persons with alzheimer's disease and their caregivers.

Authors:  Mingying Fang; Mark Oremus; Jean-Eric Tarride; Parminder Raina
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  An empirical comparison of the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U for older people in residential care.

Authors:  Tiffany Easton; Rachel Milte; Maria Crotty; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 10.  A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care.

Authors:  Norma B Bulamu; Billingsley Kaambwa; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.