Literature DB >> 28124280

Health literacy and logical inconsistencies in valuations of hypothetical health states: results from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study.

Fatima Al Sayah1, Jeffrey A Johnson1, Arto Ohinmaa1, Feng Xie2,3,4, Nick Bansback5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association of health literacy with logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states described by the EQ-5D-5L classification system.
METHODS: Data from the EQ-5D-5L Canadian Valuation study were used. Health literacy was assessed using the Brief Health Literacy Screen. A health state valuation was considered logically inconsistent if a respondent gave the same or lower value for a very mild health state compared to the value given to 55555, or gave the same or lower value for a very mild health state compared to value assigned to the majority of the health states that are dominated by the very mild health state.
RESULTS: Average age of respondents (N = 1209) was 48 (SD = 17) years, 45% were male, 7% reported inadequate health literacy, and 11% had a logical inconsistency. In adjusted analysis, participants with inadequate health literacy were 2.2 (95%CI: 1.2, 4.0; p = 0.014) times more likely to provide an inconsistent valuation compared to those with adequate health literacy. More specifically, those who had problems in "understanding written information" and "reading health information" were more likely to have a logical inconsistency compared to those who did not. However, lacking "confidence in completing medical forms" was not associated with logical inconsistencies.
CONCLUSIONS: Health literacy was associated with logical inconsistencies in valuations of hypothetical health states described by the EQ-5D-5L classification system. Valuations studies should consider assessing health literacy, and explore better ways to introduce the valuation tasks or use simpler approaches of health preferences elicitation for individuals with inadequate health literacy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EQ-5D; Health literacy; Health valuation; Logical inconsistency

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28124280     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1495-z

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


  35 in total

Review 1.  Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities.

Authors:  Sarah J Whitehead; Shehzad Ali
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 4.291

2.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Understanding the role of shame in the clinical assessment of health literacy.

Authors:  Timothy W Farrell; Robin Chandran; Robert Gramling
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.756

4.  A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Aki Tsuchiya; Ken Buckingham; Carl Tilling
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 5.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Nick Bansback; Stirling Bryan; Mary M Doyle-Waters; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  How different are composite and traditional TTO valuations of severe EQ-5D-5L states?

Authors:  Feng Xie; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Kathy Gaebel; Nick Bansback; Stirling Bryan; Arto Ohinmaa; Lise Poissant; Jeffrey A Johnson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Patients' shame and attitudes toward discussing the results of literacy screening.

Authors:  Michael S Wolf; Mark V Williams; Ruth M Parker; Nina S Parikh; Adam W Nowlan; David W Baker
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2007-12

9.  Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population.

Authors:  Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities.

Authors:  Yvette Peeters; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  3 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

Review 2.  How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research?

Authors:  Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Eliza L Y Wong; Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi; Annie W L Cheung; Amy Y K Wong; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.883

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.