Experience-Based Swedish TTO and VAS Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L Health States

Kristina Burström, Fitsum Sebsibe Teni, Ulf-G Gerdtham, Reiner Leidl, Gert Helgesson, Ola Rolfson, Martin Henriksson, Kristina Burström, Fitsum Sebsibe Teni, Ulf-G Gerdtham, Reiner Leidl, Gert Helgesson, Ola Rolfson, Martin Henriksson

Abstract

Background and objective: Although value sets for the five-level version of the generic health-related quality-of-life instrument EQ-5D are emerging, there is still no value set available in the literature based on time trade-off valuations made by individuals experiencing the valued health states. The aim of this study was to estimate experience-based value sets for the EQ-5D-5L for Sweden using time trade-off and visual analogue scale valuation methods.

Methods: In a large, cross-sectional, population-based, self-administered postal health survey, the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system, EQ visual analogue scale and a time trade-off question were included. Time trade-off and visual analogue scale valuations of the respondent's current health status were used in statistical modelling to estimate a single-index value of health for each of the 3125 health states. Ordinary least-squares and generalised linear models were estimated with the main effect within each of the five dimensions represented by 20 dummy variables reflecting the additional decrement in value for levels 2-5 when the severity increases by one level sequentially beginning from having no problem. Interaction variables representing the occurrence of severity levels in at least one of the dimensions were tested: severity level 2 or worse (N2); severity level 3 or worse (N3); severity level 4 or worse (N4); severity level 5 (N5).

Results: A total of 896 health states (28.7% of the 3125 possible EQ-5D-5L health states) were reported by the 25,867 respondents. Visual analogue scale (n = 23,899) and time trade-off (n = 13,381) responders reported valuations of their currently experienced health state. The preferred regression models used ordinary least-squares estimation for both time trade-off and visual analogue scale values and showed consistency in all coefficients after combining certain levels. Levels 4 and 5 for the dimensions of mobility, self-care and usual activities were combined in the time trade-off model. Including the interaction variable N5, indicating severity level 5 in at least one of the five dimensions, made it possible to distinguish between the two worst severity levels where no other dimension is at level 5 as this coefficient is applied only once. In the visual analogue scale regression model, levels 4 and 5 of the mobility dimension were combined. The interaction variables N2-N4 were included, indicating that each of these terms reflect a statistically significant decrement in visual analogue scale value if any of the dimensions is at severity level 2, 3 or 4, respectively.

Conclusions: Time trade-off and visual analogue scale value sets for the EQ-5D-5L are now available for Sweden. The time trade-off value set is the first such value set based on experience-based time trade-off valuation. For decision makers with a preference for experience-based valuations of health states from a representative population-based sample, the reported value sets may be considered fit for purpose to support resource allocation decision as well as evaluating population health and healthcare performance.

References

    1. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
    1. Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23–30.
    1. Pullenayegum EM, Perampaladas K, Gaebel K, Doble B, Xie F. Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection? Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(8):847–55.
    1. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):8–20.
    1. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.
    1. Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. Quality review of a proposed EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health & Care Interventions (EEPRU) Report October 2018. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl. 1):S5–9.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. London: NICE; 2013. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board LFNAR 2003:2. Stockholm: TLV; 2003. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). Ändring i Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverkets allmänna råd (TLVAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar (in Swedish). [Changes in the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency´s guidance for economic evaluations]. Stockholm: TLV; 2017. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
    1. Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LÅ. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:431–42.
    1. Cubi-Molla P, Shah K, Burström K. Experience-based values: a framework for classifying different types of experience in health valuation research. Patient. 2018;11(3):253–70.
    1. Leidl R, Reitmeir P. A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):521–34.
    1. Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):693–703.
    1. Leidl R, Reitmeir P. An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1150–6.
    1. Versteegh MM, Brouwer WBF. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.
    1. CDUST Region 2018. Liv & hälsa 2017 i Mellansverige: resultat från en undersökning om livsvillkor, levnadsvanor och hälsa (in Swedish). [Life and health 2017: results from a survey on living conditions, health-related behaviors and health]. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. Dolan P. Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2011;20(12):1407–16.
    1. Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76:359–70.
    1. Bardage C, Isacson D, Ring L, Bingefors K. A Swedish population-based study on the relationship between the SF-36 and health utilities to measure health in hypertension. Blood Press. 2003;12(4):203–10.
    1. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Euro J Public Health. 1999;3:211–7.
    1. Chai T, Draxler RR. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev. 2014;7:1247–50.
    1. Sammut C, Webb GI, editors. Mean absolute error. Encyclopedia of machine learning. Boston (MA): Springer; 2011. Available from: . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.
    1. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res. 2005;30:79–82.
    1. Wooldridge JM. Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection, attrition, and stratification. Port Econ J. 2002;1(2):117–39.
    1. Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.
    1. Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, Greiner W. German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:663–74.
    1. Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, Shah K, Devlin N, Goni JMR, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:1345–53.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Pinto-Prades JL, Luo N, et al. Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health. 2018;21:596–604.
    1. Helgesson G, Ernstsson O, Åström M, Burström K. Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states. Qual Life Res. 2020. .
    1. Wolff J, Edwards S, Richmond S, Orr S, Rees G. Evaluating interventions in health: a reconciliatory approach. Bioethics. 2012;26(9):455–63.
    1. Dolan P. NICE should value real experiences over hypothetical opinions. Nature. 2009;462(7269):35.
    1. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118:215–34.
    1. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.
    1. Emilsson L, Lindahl B, Köster M, Lambe M, Ludvigsson JF. Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries. J Intern Med. 2015;277:94–136.
    1. Stamuli E. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? Br Med Bull. 2011;97:197–210.
    1. Happich M, von Lengerke T. Valuing the health state ‘tinnitus’: differences between patients and the general public. Hear Res. 2005;207:50–8.
    1. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.
    1. Ogorevc M, Murovec N, Fernandez NB, Rupel VP. Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):166–72.
    1. Ubel PA, Nord E, Gold M, Menzel P, Prades JL, Richardson J. Improving value measurement in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2000;38(9):892–901.
    1. Leidl R. Zum Beitrag der gesundheitsökonomischen Forschung zur medizinischen Versorgung [in German]. [On the contribution of health economic research to medical care] (abstract in English). Gesundh ökon Qual Manag. 2018;23(3):159–65.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir