Monica Hernandez Alava1, Stephen Pudney1, Allan Wailoo2. 1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Electronic address: a.j.wailoo@sheffield.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Five-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) values for several countries now exist. Decision makers require confidence in the underlying data and statistical analyses before advocating their use. Independent quality assurance of the published English value set is reported here. METHODS: Data from 996 participants, and code to run published statistical models, were provided for inspection. The main elements of the study were 10 lead-time trade-off (TTO) experiments and 7 discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Data quality was examined and tested with respect to subsequent assumptions made in the statistical analysis. We examined the statistical analysis including model specification and estimation methods. RESULTS: The TTO experiments covered less than 3% of the possible 3125 5-level health states. There is strong evidence, both direct (self-reported) and indirect (poor data quality), that many participants found tasks difficult or did not engage effectively. Forty-seven percent of respondents valued more than 20% of states inconsistently, which is double the 3-level rate. The DCEs covered 12.5% of possible states and 0.01% of possible 2-state comparisons. The design precludes examination of inconsistent responses. Several aspects of the statistical model conflict with the data and underlying experimental design. The model is unidentified. The Bayesian approach relies on unjustified, informative priors. There is a clear failure to achieve convergence. CONCLUSION: Significant limitations are identified with the quality of the valuation data and the subsequent statistical analysis that underpin the English EQ-5D-5L value set. A new program of further development, including a new data collection initiative, should be considered to put the EQ-5D-5L on a sufficiently firm evidential basis for healthcare decision making.
OBJECTIVES: Five-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) values for several countries now exist. Decision makers require confidence in the underlying data and statistical analyses before advocating their use. Independent quality assurance of the published English value set is reported here. METHODS: Data from 996 participants, and code to run published statistical models, were provided for inspection. The main elements of the study were 10 lead-time trade-off (TTO) experiments and 7 discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Data quality was examined and tested with respect to subsequent assumptions made in the statistical analysis. We examined the statistical analysis including model specification and estimation methods. RESULTS: The TTO experiments covered less than 3% of the possible 3125 5-level health states. There is strong evidence, both direct (self-reported) and indirect (poor data quality), that many participants found tasks difficult or did not engage effectively. Forty-seven percent of respondents valued more than 20% of states inconsistently, which is double the 3-level rate. The DCEs covered 12.5% of possible states and 0.01% of possible 2-state comparisons. The design precludes examination of inconsistent responses. Several aspects of the statistical model conflict with the data and underlying experimental design. The model is unidentified. The Bayesian approach relies on unjustified, informative priors. There is a clear failure to achieve convergence. CONCLUSION: Significant limitations are identified with the quality of the valuation data and the subsequent statistical analysis that underpin the English EQ-5D-5L value set. A new program of further development, including a new data collection initiative, should be considered to put the EQ-5D-5L on a sufficiently firm evidential basis for healthcare decision making.
Authors: Stefan A Lipman; Brigitte A B Essers; Aureliano P Finch; Ayesha Sajjad; Peep F M Stalmeier; Bram Roudijk Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-10-18 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Anne B Wichmann; Eddy M M Adang; Kris C P Vissers; Katarzyna Szczerbińska; Marika Kylänen; Sheila Payne; Giovanni Gambassi; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Tinne Smets; Lieve Van den Block; Luc Deliens; Myrra J F J Vernooij-Dassen; Yvonne Engels Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 8.775