Literature DB >> 29980950

Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?

Samer A Kharroubi1, Donna Rowen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Different countries have different preferences regarding health, and there are different value sets for popular preference-based measures across different countries. However, the cost of collecting data to generate country-specific value sets can be prohibitive for countries with smaller population size or low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This paper explores whether existing preference weights could be modelled alongside a small own country valuation study to generate representative estimates. This is explored using a case study modelling UK data alongside smaller US samples to generate US estimates.
METHODS: We analyse EQ-5D valuation data derived from representative samples of the US and UK populations using time trade-off to value 42 health states. A nonparametric Bayesian model was applied to estimate a US value set using the full UK dataset and subsets of the US dataset for 10, 15, 20 and 25 health states. Estimates are compared to a US value set estimated using US values alone using mean predictions and root mean square error.
RESULTS: The results suggest that using US data elicited for 20 health states alongside the existing UK data produces similar predicted mean valuations and RMSE as the US value set, while 25 health states produce the exact features.
CONCLUSIONS: The promising results suggest that existing preference data could be combined with a small valuation study in a new country to generate preference weights, making own country value sets more achievable for LMIC. Further research is encouraged.

Keywords:  EQ-5D; Nonparametric Bayesian methods; Preference-based health measures; Time trade-off

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29980950     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0991-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  17 in total

1.  A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states.

Authors:  X Badia; M Roset; M Herdman; P Kind
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments.

Authors:  G Hawthorne; J Richardson; N A Day
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

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

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

4.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model.

Authors:  James W Shaw; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?

Authors:  Jeffrey A Johnson; Nan Luo; James W Shaw; Paul Kind; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method.

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi; Anthony O'Hagan; John E Brazier
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-07-10       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  A Comparison of Japan and U.K. SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method.

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.561

Review 8.  International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Measuring preferences for health states worse than death.

Authors:  D L Patrick; H E Starks; K C Cain; R F Uhlmann; R A Pearlman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1994 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  2 in total

1.  Analysis of SF-6D Health State Utility Scores: Is Beta Regression Appropriate?

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-01

2.  Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population.

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi; Yara Beyh; Marwa Diab El Harake; Dalia Dawoud; Donna Rowen; John Brazier
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.