Marloes E Clarijs1, Lindy M Kregting2, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn2, Linetta B Koppert3, Ida J Korfage2. 1. Department of Oncologic and Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Academic Breast Cancer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center Cancer Institute, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.clarijs@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Oncologic and Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Academic Breast Cancer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center Cancer Institute, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Normative utility scores represent the health related quality of life of the general population, are of utmost importance in cost-effectiveness studies and should reflect relevant sexes and age groups. The aim of this study was to estimate EQ-5D-5L normative utility scores in a population of Dutch females, stratified by age, and to compare these scores to those of female populations of three other countries. METHODS: Dutch women completed the EQ-5D-5L online between January and July 2020. Mean normative utilities were computed using the Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set, stratified by age, tested for differences using the Kruskall-Wallis test, and compared to normative utility scores of female populations elsewhere. Additionally, to support the use of the Dutch EQ-5D-5L data in other settings, normative utility scores were also calculated by applying the value sets of Germany, United Kingdom and USA. RESULTS: Data of 9037 women were analyzed and the weighted mean utility score was 0.911 (SD 0.155, 95% CI 0.908-0.914). The mean normative utility scores differed between age groups, showing lower scores in older females. Compared to other normative utility scores of female populations, Dutch mean utilities were consistently higher except for age groups 18-24 and 25-34. With the three country-specific value sets, new age-specific mean normative utility scores were provided. CONCLUSION: This study provides mean normative utility scores of a large cohort of Dutch females per age group, which were found to be lower in older age groups. Utility scores calculated with three other value sets were made available.
PURPOSE: Normative utility scores represent the health related quality of life of the general population, are of utmost importance in cost-effectiveness studies and should reflect relevant sexes and age groups. The aim of this study was to estimate EQ-5D-5L normative utility scores in a population of Dutch females, stratified by age, and to compare these scores to those of female populations of three other countries. METHODS: Dutch women completed the EQ-5D-5L online between January and July 2020. Mean normative utilities were computed using the Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set, stratified by age, tested for differences using the Kruskall-Wallis test, and compared to normative utility scores of female populations elsewhere. Additionally, to support the use of the Dutch EQ-5D-5L data in other settings, normative utility scores were also calculated by applying the value sets of Germany, United Kingdom and USA. RESULTS: Data of 9037 women were analyzed and the weighted mean utility score was 0.911 (SD 0.155, 95% CI 0.908-0.914). The mean normative utility scores differed between age groups, showing lower scores in older females. Compared to other normative utility scores of female populations, Dutch mean utilities were consistently higher except for age groups 18-24 and 25-34. With the three country-specific value sets, new age-specific mean normative utility scores were provided. CONCLUSION: This study provides mean normative utility scores of a large cohort of Dutch females per age group, which were found to be lower in older age groups. Utility scores calculated with three other value sets were made available.
Authors: Hans-Helmut König; Sebastian Bernert; Matthias C Angermeyer; Herbert Matschinger; Montse Martinez; Gemma Vilagut; Josep Maria Haro; Giovanni de Girolamo; Ron de Graaf; Viviane Kovess; Jordi Alonso Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: A Simon Pickard; Ernest H Law; Ruixuan Jiang; Eleanor Pullenayegum; James W Shaw; Feng Xie; Mark Oppe; Kristina S Boye; Richard H Chapman; Cynthia L Gong; Alan Balch; Jan J V Busschbach Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Nikki McCaffrey; Billingsley Kaambwa; David C Currow; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Angela M Kunzler; Nikolaus Röthke; Lukas Günthner; Jutta Stoffers-Winterling; Oliver Tüscher; Michaela Coenen; Eva Rehfuess; Guido Schwarzer; Harald Binder; Christine Schmucker; Joerg J Meerpohl; Klaus Lieb Journal: Global Health Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 10.401
Authors: Tom H Van de Belt; Lucien J L P G Engelen; Sivera A A Berben; Steven Teerenstra; Melvin Samsom; Lisette Schoonhoven Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 5.428