Literature DB >> 34302310

Does a health crisis change how we value health?

Edward J D Webb1, Paul Kind1, David Meads1, Adam Martin1.   

Abstract

General population health state values are used in healthcare resource allocation, including health technology assessment. We examine whether UK general population health valuations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ratings of EQ-5D-5L health states 11111 (no problems), 55555 (extreme problems), and dead were collected in a UK general population survey during the pandemic (April-May 2020) using the 0 = worst imaginable health, 100 = best imaginable health visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). Ratings for 55555 were transformed to a full health = 1, dead = 0 scale. Responses were compared to similar data collected pre-pandemic (2018). After propensity score matching to minimize sample differences, EQ-VAS responses were analyzed using Tobit regressions. On the 0-100 scale, 11111 was rated on average 8.67 points lower, 55555 rated 9.56 points higher, and dead rated 7.45 points lower post-pandemic onset compared to pre-pandemic. On the full health = 1, dead = 0 scale, 55555 values were 0.09 higher post-pandemic onset. There was evidence of differential impacts of COVID-19 by gender, age, and ethnicity, although only age impacted values on the 1-0 scale. COVID-19 may have affected how people value health. It is unknown whether the effect is large enough to have policy relevance, but caution should be taken in assuming pre-COVID-19 values are unchanged.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; EQ-5D; EQ-VAS; health-related quality of life; valuation; visual analog scale

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34302310     DOI: 10.1002/hec.4399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  3 in total

1.  Public versus patient health preferences: protocol for a study to elicit EQ-5D-5L health state valuations for patients who have survived a stay in intensive care.

Authors:  Christine Marie Bækø Halling; Claire Gudex; Anders Perner; Cathrine Elgaard Jensen; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Exploring the Comparability of Face-to-Face Versus Video Conference-Based Composite Time Trade-Off Interviews: Insights from EQ-5D-Y-3L Valuation Studies in Belgium and Spain.

Authors:  Anabel Estévez-Carrillo; Sarah Dewilde; Mark Oppe; Juan M Ramos-Goñi
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Gábor Ruzsa; Alex Bató; Zhihao Yang; Aureliano Paolo Finch; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 4.558

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.