Literature DB >> 33919471

Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review.

Moustapha Touré1,2, Christian R C Kouakou1,2, Thomas G Poder2,3.   

Abstract

Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions' and levels' selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores.

Entities:  

Keywords:  QALY; economic assessment; impact; instrument development; utility

Year:  2021        PMID: 33919471     DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health        ISSN: 1660-4601            Impact factor:   3.390


  58 in total

1.  Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Tracey Young; Sabine Gaugris; Benjamin M Craig; Madeleine T King; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Tara Symonds; Martin Brown
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Authors:  Martina Garau; Koonal K Shah; Anne R Mason; Qing Wang; Adrian Towse; Michael F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Developing preference-based measures for diabetes: DHP-3D and DHP-5D.

Authors:  B Mulhern; A Labeit; D Rowen; E Knowles; K Meadows; J Elliott; J Brazier
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.359

5.  Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Ateesha F Mohamed; F Reed Johnson; Olatoye Oyelowo; Bradley H Curtis; Cheryl Coon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Estimation of a valuation function for a diabetes mellitus-specific preference-based measure of health: the Diabetes Utility Index.

Authors:  Murali Sundaram; Michael J Smith; Dennis A Revicki; Lesley-Ann Miller; Suresh Madhavan; Gerry Hobbs
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Calculating Preference Weights for the Labor and Delivery Index: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women's Birth Experiences.

Authors:  Fania R Gärtner; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Anne M Stiggelbout; Marlies E Rijnders; Liv M Freeman; Johanna M Middeldorp; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Esteriek de Miranda; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire.

Authors:  Yaling Yang; John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Karin Coyne
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Type D personality, mental distress, social support and health-related quality of life in coronary artery disease patients with heart failure: a longitudinal observational study.

Authors:  Margarita Staniute; Julija Brozaitiene; Julius Burkauskas; Nijole Kazukauskiene; Narseta Mickuviene; Robertas Bunevicius
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes.

Authors:  Mark Oppe; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Koonal Shah; Juan M Ramos-Goñi; Nan Luo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  2 in total

1.  Vitamin D supplementation for autoimmune hepatitis: A need for further investigation.

Authors:  Consolato M Sergi
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2022-01-27

2.  Development of a balanced instrument to measure global health-related quality of life: The 13-MD.

Authors:  Moustapha Touré; Alain Lesage; Thomas G Poder
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 5.435

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.