Reiner Leidl1, Peter Reitmeir2. 1. Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, HelmholtzZentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany; Munich Center of Health Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Leidl@helmholtz-muenchen.de. 2. Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, HelmholtzZentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Valuation of health states provides a summary measure useful to health care decision makers. Results may depend on whether the currently experienced health state or a hypothetical health state is being evaluated. This study derives a value set for the EuroQoL Five-Dimensional Five-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) by focusing on the individual's current experience. DATA AND METHODS: Data include four pooled population surveys of the general German population in 2012-2015 (N = 8114). For valuation, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was used. Six specifications of a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and constraint parameter estimation were analyzed. In each 1000 simulation runs, models were cross-validated after splitting the sample into an estimation part and a validation part. Predictive accuracy was measured by mean absolute error and sum of squared errors. RESULTS: The models rendered a consistent set of parameters. With regard to predictive accuracy, the model considering all problem levels within the five dimensions and the highest problem level reached performed best overall. DISCUSSION: Estimation proved to be feasible. Predictive accuracy exceeded that of a similar, experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-3L. Compared with a Dutch value set for the EQ-5D-5L derived for hypothetical health states, experienced values tended to be slightly lower for mild health states and substantially higher for severe health states. Clinical relevance and usefulness of the value set remain to be determined in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: For decision makers who prioritize patient-relevant benefit, the experience-based value set provides a novel option to summarize health states, reflecting how health states experienced are valued in a population.
OBJECTIVE: Valuation of health states provides a summary measure useful to health care decision makers. Results may depend on whether the currently experienced health state or a hypothetical health state is being evaluated. This study derives a value set for the EuroQoL Five-Dimensional Five-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) by focusing on the individual's current experience. DATA AND METHODS: Data include four pooled population surveys of the general German population in 2012-2015 (N = 8114). For valuation, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was used. Six specifications of a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and constraint parameter estimation were analyzed. In each 1000 simulation runs, models were cross-validated after splitting the sample into an estimation part and a validation part. Predictive accuracy was measured by mean absolute error and sum of squared errors. RESULTS: The models rendered a consistent set of parameters. With regard to predictive accuracy, the model considering all problem levels within the five dimensions and the highest problem level reached performed best overall. DISCUSSION: Estimation proved to be feasible. Predictive accuracy exceeded that of a similar, experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-3L. Compared with a Dutch value set for the EQ-5D-5L derived for hypothetical health states, experienced values tended to be slightly lower for mild health states and substantially higher for severe health states. Clinical relevance and usefulness of the value set remain to be determined in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: For decision makers who prioritize patient-relevant benefit, the experience-based value set provides a novel option to summarize health states, reflecting how health states experienced are valued in a population.
Authors: Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul; Cynthia R Gross; Montaya Sunantiwat; Montarat Thavorncharoensap Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Johanna Baumgardt; Julian Schwarz; Sebastian Von Peter; Stefan Weinmann; Andreas Bechdolf; Konstantinos Nikolaidis; Martin Heinze; Johannes Hamann; Martin Holzke; Gerhard Längle; Janina Richter; Peter Brieger; Reinhold Kilian; Jürgen Timm; Constance Hirschmeier Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Boglárka Lilla Szentes; Michael Kreuter; Thomas Bahmer; Surinder S Birring; Martin Claussen; Julia Waelscher; Reiner Leidl; Larissa Schwarzkopf Journal: Respir Res Date: 2018-05-25
Authors: Caroline Sophie Andonian; Sebastian Freilinger; Stephan Achenbach; Peter Ewert; Ulrike Gundlach; Jürgen Hoerer; Harald Kaemmerer; Lars Pieper; Michael Weyand; Rhoia Clara Neidenbach; Jürgen Beckmann Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 2.692