A Ó Céilleachair1, J F O'Mahony2, M O'Connor3, J O'Leary4, C Normand2, C Martin4, L Sharp5. 1. National Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Cork, Ireland. a.oceilleachair@ncri.ie. 2. Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 3. National Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Cork, Ireland. 4. Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995-December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups. RESULTS: Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time.
PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995-December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups. RESULTS: Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical cancer; Health economics; Health-related quality of life; Human papillomavirus; Screening; Systematic reviews
Authors: Julia M L Brotherton; Masha Fridman; Cathryn L May; Genevieve Chappell; A Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: N M Gray; L Sharp; S C Cotton; M Avis; Z Philips; I Russell; L G Walker; D Whynes; J Little Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N M Gray; L Sharp; S C Cotton; L F Masson; J Little; L G Walker; M Avis; Z Philips; I Russell; D Whynes; M Cruickshank; C M Woolley Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 7.640