Literature DB >> 25519940

Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?

Benjamin M Craig1, A Simon Pickard, Kim Rand-Hendriksen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test whether the ordering of item labels in EQ-5D instruments disagrees with the preferences of US adults.
METHODS: A preference inversion occurs when "worse" health along a scale or score is preferred. As a sub-study of the 2013 United States Measurement and Valuation of Health Study, we tested for 33 EQ-5D preference inversions using paired comparisons with unique samples of 50 or more US adults, aged 18 or older. Specifically, we tested whether health preferences contradicted ordering of EQ-5D labels.
RESULTS: The EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y item labels had no significant preference inversions. The EQ-5D-5L version had preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5. For example, 30 out of 59 respondents (51 %) preferred being "extremely" over "severely anxious or depressed," contrary to the ordering of labels for that item.
CONCLUSIONS: Preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5 on the EQ-5D-5L were tested and confirmed; therefore, valuation studies may find that Levels 4 and 5 have the same value. To mitigate such inversions, labels could be revised or a 4-level version could be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25519940      PMCID: PMC5115631          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0897-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Toward a more universal approach in health valuation.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; Michael Drummond; Dennis Fryback; Marthe Gold; Dennis Revicki
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.

Authors:  David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  US valuation of the SF-6D.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; A Simon Pickard; Elly Stolk; John E Brazier
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; A Simon Pickard; Erica I Lubetkin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D.

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Thomas Kohlmann; Mathieu F Janssen; Gouke Bonsel; Sarah Rosenbloom; David Cella
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D.

Authors:  Nora Wille; Xavier Badia; Gouke Bonsel; Kristina Burström; Gulia Cavrini; Nancy Devlin; Ann-Charlotte Egmar; Wolfgang Greiner; Narcis Gusi; Michael Herdman; Jennifer Jelsma; Paul Kind; Luciana Scalone; Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L).

Authors:  M Herdman; C Gudex; A Lloyd; Mf Janssen; P Kind; D Parkin; G Bonsel; X Badia
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  7 in total

1.  Does Device or Connection Type Affect Health Preferences in Online Surveys?

Authors:  John D Hartman; Benjamin M Craig
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Further evidence on EQ-5D-5L preference inversion: a Brazil/U.S. collaboration.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Andréa L Monteiro; Michael Herdman; Marisa Santos
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?

Authors:  Brendan Mulhern; Richard Norman; Paula Lorgelly; Emily Lancsar; Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states 'in context' using a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Amanda Cole; Koonal Shah; Brendan Mulhern; Yan Feng; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-05-31

5.  Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Health Values.

Authors:  Anna Selivanova; Erik Buskens; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples.

Authors:  Benjamin Matthew Craig; Kim Rand; John D Hartman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  A New Approach to Assessing Children's Interpretation of Severity Qualifiers in a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument-The EQ-5D-Y-5L: Development and Testing.

Authors:  Sarah Derrett; Mike Herdman; Lucky G Ngwira; Elizabeth Yohe Moore; Jennifer Jelsma
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.883

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.