Literature DB >> 30224118

Quality-Adjusted Life-Years without Constant Proportionality.

Benjamin M Craig1, Kim Rand2, Henry Bailey3, Peep F M Stalmeier4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A quality-adjusted life-year is a common unit of measurement in health valuation. Under its constant proportionality assumption, the value of a quality-adjusted life span is defined as the product of preference weight and life span.
OBJECTIVES: To empirically identify an alternative functional relationship between life span and value by relaxing the constant proportionality assumption.
METHODS: Using an online survey, 5367 respondents completed 30 to 40 paired comparisons where each involved a choice between two health outcomes: one with a longer life span and health problems (five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire) and the other with a shorter life span and no problems (time trade-off pair). Using 2670 pairs, a saturated model with indicator variables for 27 life spans and 90 health problems of varying duration and severity was estimated by maximum likelihood. Its coefficients empirically illustrate the relationship between life span and value on a quality-adjusted life-year scale.
RESULTS: The results reject constant proportionality (P < 0.01) and support the use of a power function to describe the relationship between life span and value, namely, value = preference weight × life spanβ. The estimate of power (β = 0.415; 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.42) appears to depend on whether life span was expressed in a temporal unit of days (0.403), weeks (0.509), months (0.541), or years (0.654).
CONCLUSIONS: Raising life span to a power less than 1 implies decreasing marginal value of life span and greatly improved model fit, and confirms previous violations of proportionality. This power function may replace conventional assumptions in health valuation studies. Nevertheless, governmental agencies may favor a longer time horizon than that of the general population.
Copyright © 2018 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  EQ-5D-5L; cost-utility analyses; quality-adjusted life-years

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30224118     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  5 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

2.  Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology.

Authors:  Stefan A Lipman; Liying Zhang; Koonal K Shah; Arthur E Attema
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-21

3.  Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis).

Authors:  Marcel F Jonker; Richard Norman
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques.

Authors:  Johanna Vásquez; Sergio Botero
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples.

Authors:  Benjamin Matthew Craig; Kim Rand; John D Hartman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 3.481

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.