BACKGROUND: The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument combines questionnaire responses into a single utility estimate using country-specific value sets. Countries without a national value set are advised to select one based on geographic proximity. In the absence of a Swiss value set, we used foreign value sets to gain insights into their appropriateness for use with Swiss cancer patients. METHODS: EQ-5D health states and visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings were collected in one German and three Swiss oncology trials. Utilities were calculated based on the United Kingdom (UK), German (GE), French (FR) and European Union (EU) value sets. Resulting differences and Pearson partial correlation coefficients with corresponding VAS ratings were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 202 Swiss and 154 German patients undergoing cancer treatment completed at least two EQ-5D forms. The mean difference between GE-based and FR-, UK- or EU-based utilities was significantly larger than the differences between the latter. The absolute mean difference between utilities and VAS ratings was highest for GE-based utilities, for Swiss (0.170, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.146-0.194) and German patients (0.174, 95 % CI 0.145-0.202). The correlation between GE-based utilities and VAS ratings was the lowest (r = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.33-0.40); the highest was between FR-based utilities and VAS ratings (r = 0.43, 95 % CI 0.39-0.46). CONCLUSION: For Switzerland, utility calculations based on the German or French value set would be an obvious choice. Our results suggest that the German value set may not be the most appropriate for use with Swiss cancer patients. The French and EU value sets may be relevant alternatives and improve international comparability.
BACKGROUND: The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument combines questionnaire responses into a single utility estimate using country-specific value sets. Countries without a national value set are advised to select one based on geographic proximity. In the absence of a Swiss value set, we used foreign value sets to gain insights into their appropriateness for use with Swiss cancerpatients. METHODS: EQ-5D health states and visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings were collected in one German and three Swiss oncology trials. Utilities were calculated based on the United Kingdom (UK), German (GE), French (FR) and European Union (EU) value sets. Resulting differences and Pearson partial correlation coefficients with corresponding VAS ratings were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 202 Swiss and 154 German patients undergoing cancer treatment completed at least two EQ-5D forms. The mean difference between GE-based and FR-, UK- or EU-based utilities was significantly larger than the differences between the latter. The absolute mean difference between utilities and VAS ratings was highest for GE-based utilities, for Swiss (0.170, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.146-0.194) and German patients (0.174, 95 % CI 0.145-0.202). The correlation between GE-based utilities and VAS ratings was the lowest (r = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.33-0.40); the highest was between FR-based utilities and VAS ratings (r = 0.43, 95 % CI 0.39-0.46). CONCLUSION: For Switzerland, utility calculations based on the German or French value set would be an obvious choice. Our results suggest that the German value set may not be the most appropriate for use with Swiss cancerpatients. The French and EU value sets may be relevant alternatives and improve international comparability.
Authors: Wolfgang Greiner; Tom Weijnen; Martin Nieuwenhuizen; Siem Oppe; Xavier Badia; Jan Busschbach; Martin Buxton; Paul Dolan; Paul Kind; Paul Krabbe; Arto Ohinmaa; David Parkin; Montserat Roset; Harri Sintonen; Aki Tsuchiya; Frank de Charro Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2003-09
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
Authors: Chloé Sieber; Deborah Chiavi; Christina Haag; Marco Kaufmann; Andrea B Horn; Holger Dressel; Chiara Zecca; Pasquale Calabrese; Caroline Pot; Christian Philipp Kamm; Viktor von Wyl Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Alena M Pfeil; Oliver Reich; Ines M Guerra; Sandrine Cure; Francesco Negro; Beat Müllhaupt; Daniel Lavanchy; Matthias Schwenkglenks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anouk Déruaz-Luyet; A Alexandra N'Goran; Ryan Tandjung; Peter Frey; Andreas Zeller; Dagmar M Haller; Thomas Rosemann; Bernard Burnand; Patrick Bodenmann; Nicolas Senn; Daniel Widmer; Lilli Herzig Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Samuel Stempfel; Stefanie Aeschbacher; Steffen Blum; Pascal Meyre; Rebecca Gugganig; Jürg H Beer; Richard Kobza; Michael Kühne; Giorgio Moschovitis; Gianluca Menghini; Jan Novak; Stefan Osswald; Nicolas Rodondi; Elisavet Moutzouri; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Fabienne Witassek; David Conen; Christian Sticherling Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Mohammad Reza Abedini; Bita Bijari; Zahra Miri; Fatemeh Shakhs Emampour; Ali Abbasi Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Marco Kaufmann; Milo Alan Puhan; Anke Salmen; Christian P Kamm; Zina-Mary Manjaly; Pasquale Calabrese; Sven Schippling; Stefanie Müller; Jens Kuhle; Caroline Pot; Claudio Gobbi; Nina Steinemann; Viktor von Wyl Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.003