nach oben

Erschienen in:

14.08.2017

Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population

verfasst von: Mihir Gandhi, Ru San Tan, Raymond Ng, Su Pin Choo, Whay Kuang Chia, Chee Keong Toh, Carolyn Lam, Phong Teck Lee, Nang Khaing Zar Latt, Kim Rand-Hendriksen, Yin Bun Cheung, Nan Luo

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 12/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Utility values are critical for cost-utility analyses that guide healthcare decisions. We aimed to compare the utility values of the 5-level EuroQoL-5Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) health states elicited from members of the general public and patients with heart disease or cancer.

Methods

In face-to-face interviews with 157 heart disease patients, 169 cancer patients, and 169 members from the general population, participants valued 10 EQ-5D-5L health states using a composite Time Trade-Off method.

Results

Pooling utility values for all health states, heart disease patients and cancer patients had mean utility values lower by 0.11 points (P value = 0.014) and 0.06 points (P value = 0.148), respectively, compared to the general population. Adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, differences in health state utility values between the patient and the general populations were rendered non-significant, except that heart disease patients gave higher utility values (mean difference = 0.08; P value = 0.007) to mild health states than the general population. Difference in utility values, defined as utility value of a better health state minus that of a poorer health state, was higher among heart disease patients compared to the general population, before and after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusions

Patients may differ from members of the general population in the strength of their preferences for hypothetical health states. Using utility values derived from the general population may under-estimate the comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions for certain diseases, such as heart diseases.

Vorheriger Artikel Differences in quality of life between Jewish and Arab patients on hemodialysis

Nächster Artikel Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Brazier, J. E., Dixon, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2009). The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics, 27(9), 705–712.CrossRefPubMed

Stamuli, E. (2011). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: Who should value health? British Medical Bulletin, 97, 197–210.CrossRefPubMed

Stiggelbout, A. M., & Vogel-Voogt, D. (2008). Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value in Health, 11(1), 76–87.CrossRefPubMed

Drummond, M. F., & McGuire, A. (2001). Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory with practice. USA: Oxford University Press.

Gandjour, A. (2010). Theoretical foundation of patient v. Population preferences in calculating QALYs. Medical Decision Making, 30(4), E57–E63.CrossRefPubMed

Wang, P., Tai, E., Thumboo, J., Vrijhoef, H. J., & Luo, N. (2014). Does diabetes have an impact on health-state utility? A study of asians in singapore. The Patient, 7(3), 329–337.CrossRefPubMed

Rowen, D., Mulhern, B., Banerjee, S., Tait, R., Watchurst, C., Smith, S. C., et al. (2014). Comparison of general population, patient, and carer utility values for dementia health States. Medical Decision Making, 35(1), 68–80.CrossRefPubMed

Peeters, Y., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2010). Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value in Health, 13(2), 306–309.CrossRefPubMed

Gandhi, M., Thumboo, J., Luo, N., Wee, H. L., & Cheung, Y. B. (2015). Do chronic disease patients value generic health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease? A case of a multicultural Asian population. Health and quality of life outcomes, 13, 8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Gerhards, S. A., Evers, S. M., Sabel, P. W., & Huibers, M. J. (2011). Discrepancy in rating health-related quality of life of depression between patient and general population. Quality of Life Research, 20(2), 273–279.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Dolders, M. G., Zeegers, M. P., Groot, W., & Ament, A. (2006). A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(7), 653–664.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mulhern, B., Rowen, D., Snape, D., Jacoby, A., Marson, T., Hughes, D., et al. (2014). Valuations of epilepsy-specific health states: A comparison of patients with epilepsy and the general population. Epilepsy & Behavior, 36, 12–17.CrossRef

13.

Pickard, A. S., Tawk, R., & Shaw, J. W. (2013). The effect of chronic conditions on stated preferences for health. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(4), 697–702.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Krabbe, P. F., Tromp, N., Ruers, T. J., & Reil, P. L. (2011). Are patients’ judgments of health status really different from the general population? Health and quality of life outcomes, 9, 31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Janssen, M., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Deaton, C., Froelicher, E. S., Wu, L. H., Ho, C., Shishani, K., & Jaarsma, T. (2011). The global burden of cardiovascular disease. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 10, S5–S13.CrossRef

19.

Fitzmaurice, C., Dicker, D., Pain, A., Hamavid, H., Moradi-Lakeh, M., Maclntyre, M. F., et al. (2015). The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA oncology, 1(4), 505–527.CrossRefPubMed

20.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Retrieved March 05, 2017, from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781.

21.

Luo, N., Li, M., Stolk, E. A., & Devlin, N. J. (2013). The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: A study of the EQ-VT framework. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S15–S24.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goni, J. M., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sonnenberg, F., & Beck, J. (1993). Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Medical Decision Making, 4, 322–338.CrossRef

25.

Williams, R. L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics, 56(2), 645–646.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Nolan, C. M., Longworth, L., Lord, J., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Kon, S. S., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax, 71(6), 493–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Department of Statistics Singapore. Singapore Census of Population 2010. Retrieved 02, June, 2017, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications-and-papers/population#census_of_population.

28.

Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics, 18(3), 363–372.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Rupel, V. P., & Marko, M. O. (2016). Should patients estimate health related quality of life? The results of empirical study. Value in Health, 19, A480.CrossRef

30.

Papageorgiou, K., Vermeulen, K., Schroevers, M., Stiggelbout, A., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P., et al. (2015). Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why? Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2565–2575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Sayah, F., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Pullenayegum, E., et al. (2016). Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: Data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1679–1685.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Shaw, J., Johnson, J., Chen, S., Levin, J., & Coons, S. (2007). Racial/ethnic differences in preferences for the EQ-5D health states: Results from the U.S. valuation study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 479–490.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population
verfasst von: Mihir Gandhi
Ru San Tan
Raymond Ng
Su Pin Choo
Whay Kuang Chia
Chee Keong Toh
Carolyn Lam
Phong Teck Lee
Nang Khaing Zar Latt
Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Yin Bun Cheung
Nan Luo
Publikationsdatum: 14.08.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1683-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2017

Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population

Differences in quality of life between Jewish and Arab patients on hemodialysis

Quality of life among German parents of children with cystic fibrosis: the effects of being a single caregiver

Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system

Maternal mental quality of life mediates the associations between intimate partner abuse against mothers and their children’s behaviours and quality of life in low-income Chinese families

Premium Partner