A Simon Pickard1, Ernest H Law2, Ruixuan Jiang2, Eleanor Pullenayegum3, James W Shaw4, Feng Xie5, Mark Oppe6, Kristina S Boye7, Richard H Chapman8, Cynthia L Gong9, Alan Balch10, Jan J V Busschbach11. 1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: pickard1@uic.edu. 2. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA. 5. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Axentiva Solutions, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. 7. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 8. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, Boston, MA, USA. 9. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. Patient Advocate Foundation, Hampton, VA, USA. 11. Section of Medical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group. METHODS: Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations. RESULTS: Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead). CONCLUSIONS: A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.
OBJECTIVE: To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group. METHODS: Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations. RESULTS: Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead). CONCLUSIONS: A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.
Authors: Di Long; Juanita A Haagsma; Mathieu F Janssen; John N Yfantopoulos; Erica I Lubetkin; Gouke J Bonsel Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Kai Yeung; Weiwei Zhu; Susan M McCurry; Michael Von Korff; Robert Wellman; Charles M Morin; Michael V Vitiello Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Noah J Harrison; Molly M Ford; Erin M Wolf Horrell; Michael Feng; Fei Ye; Kevin C Zhang; Alexander T Hawkins Journal: Surgery Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; An Tran-Duy; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Emilie Courtin; Kali Aloisi; Cynthia Miller; Heidi L Allen; Lawrence F Katz; Peter Muennig Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 6.301