Mihir Gandhi1,2,3, Ru San Tan4, Raymond Ng5, Su Pin Choo5, Whay Kuang Chia5, Chee Keong Toh5, Carolyn Lam4, Phong Teck Lee4, Nang Khaing Zar Latt4, Kim Rand-Hendriksen6,7, Yin Bun Cheung1,2,3, Nan Luo8. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Singapore Clinical Research Institute, #02-01 Nanos, 31 Biopolis Way, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Level 6, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Tampere Center for Child Health Research, University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Arvo Building, Lääkärinkatu 1, Tampere, Finland. 4. Department of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Health Services Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Forskningsveien 3A, 0373, Oslo, Norway. 7. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 3A, 0373, Oslo, Norway. 8. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building (MD1), 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, Singapore. ephln@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Utility values are critical for cost-utility analyses that guide healthcare decisions. We aimed to compare the utility values of the 5-level EuroQoL-5Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) health states elicited from members of the general public and patients with heart disease or cancer. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews with 157 heart disease patients, 169 cancer patients, and 169 members from the general population, participants valued 10 EQ-5D-5L health states using a composite Time Trade-Off method. RESULTS: Pooling utility values for all health states, heart disease patients and cancer patients had mean utility values lower by 0.11 points (P value = 0.014) and 0.06 points (P value = 0.148), respectively, compared to the general population. Adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, differences in health state utility values between the patient and the general populations were rendered non-significant, except that heart disease patients gave higher utility values (mean difference = 0.08; P value = 0.007) to mild health states than the general population. Difference in utility values, defined as utility value of a better health state minus that of a poorer health state, was higher among heart disease patients compared to the general population, before and after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients may differ from members of the general population in the strength of their preferences for hypothetical health states. Using utility values derived from the general population may under-estimate the comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions for certain diseases, such as heart diseases.
PURPOSE: Utility values are critical for cost-utility analyses that guide healthcare decisions. We aimed to compare the utility values of the 5-level EuroQoL-5Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) health states elicited from members of the general public and patients with heart disease or cancer. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews with 157 heart diseasepatients, 169 cancerpatients, and 169 members from the general population, participants valued 10 EQ-5D-5L health states using a composite Time Trade-Off method. RESULTS: Pooling utility values for all health states, heart diseasepatients and cancerpatients had mean utility values lower by 0.11 points (P value = 0.014) and 0.06 points (P value = 0.148), respectively, compared to the general population. Adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, differences in health state utility values between the patient and the general populations were rendered non-significant, except that heart diseasepatients gave higher utility values (mean difference = 0.08; P value = 0.007) to mild health states than the general population. Difference in utility values, defined as utility value of a better health state minus that of a poorer health state, was higher among heart diseasepatients compared to the general population, before and after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:Patients may differ from members of the general population in the strength of their preferences for hypothetical health states. Using utility values derived from the general population may under-estimate the comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions for certain diseases, such as heart diseases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; EQ-5D; Heart disease; Preference; Time trade-off; Utility
Authors: Fatima Al Sayah; Nick Bansback; Stirling Bryan; Arto Ohinmaa; Lise Poissant; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Feng Xie; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Donna Rowen; Brendan Mulhern; Sube Banerjee; Rhian Tait; Caroline Watchurst; Sarah C Smith; Tracey A Young; Martin Knapp; John E Brazier Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 2.583
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
Authors: Jamie O'Hara; Antony P Martin; Diane Nugent; Michelle Witkop; Tyler W Buckner; Mark W Skinner; Brian O'Mahony; Brendan Mulhern; George Morgan; Nanxin Li; Eileen K Sawyer Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.287
Authors: Manraj N Kaur; Jiajun Yan; Anne F Klassen; Justin P David; Dilshan Pieris; Manraj Sharma; Louise Bordeleau; Feng Xie Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 2.749