The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set

Fredrick Dermawan Purba, Joke A M Hunfeld, Aulia Iskandarsyah, Titi Sahidah Fitriana, Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi, Jan Passchier, Jan J V Busschbach, Fredrick Dermawan Purba, Joke A M Hunfeld, Aulia Iskandarsyah, Titi Sahidah Fitriana, Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi, Jan Passchier, Jan J V Busschbach

Abstract

Background: The EQ-5D is one of the most used generic health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instruments worldwide. To make the EQ-5D suitable for use in economic evaluations, a societal-based value set is needed. Indonesia does not have such a value set.

Objective: The aim of this study was to derive an EQ-5D-5L value set from the Indonesian general population.

Methods: A representative sample aged 17 years and over was recruited from the Indonesian general population. A multi-stage stratified quota method with respect to residence, gender, age, level of education, religion and ethnicity was utilized. Two elicitation techniques, the composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and discrete choice experiments (DCE) were applied. Interviews were undertaken by trained interviewers using computer-assisted face-to-face interviews with the EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) platform. To estimate the value set, a hybrid regression model combining C-TTO and DCE data was used.

Results: A total of 1054 respondents who completed the interview formed the sample for the analysis. Their characteristics were similar to those of the Indonesian population. Most self-reported health problems were observed in the pain/discomfort dimension (39.66%) and least in the self-care dimension (1.89%). In the value set, the maximum value was 1.000 for full health (health state '11111') followed by the health state '11112' with value 0.921. The minimum value was -0.865 for the worst state ('55555'). Preference values were most affected by mobility and least by pain/discomfort.

Conclusions: We now have a representative EQ-5D-5L value set for Indonesia. We expect our results will promote and facilitate health economic evaluations and HRQOL research in Indonesia.

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

The research was financed by the EuroQol Group and Directorate General of Higher Education of Indonesia (http://www.dikti.go.id). Both grants were unrestricted.

Conflicts of interest

The following authors are members of the EuroQol Research Foundation (the copyright holders of EQ-5D-5L): JB and JMR. There are no other conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Observed C-TTO values. C-TTO composite time trade-off
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Comparison of C-TTO and DCE rescaled predicted utilities. b Comparison of C-TTO and hybrid predicted utilities. c Comparison of DCE rescaled and hybrid predicted utilities. C-TTO composite time trade-off, DCE discrete choice experiment

References

    1. Badan Pusat Statistik. Statistik 70 Tahun Indonesia Merdeka. Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta 2015. . Accessed 3 Nov 2015.
    1. . Vision and Mission. BPJS Kesehatan. 2010. . Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
    1. President of Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2013 Tentang Jaminan Kesehatan Jakarta. 2013. . Accessed 14 Nov 2015.
    1. World Health Organization. Countries with National agency/unit/committee that produces HTA reports for the Ministry of Health. World Health Organization. 2015. . Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
    1. Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):2045–2053. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.
    1. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):276–291. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14543107.
    1. Chen G, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Ratcliffe J, Richardson J. Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(2):160–75. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15578127.
    1. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329(7459):224–227. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224.
    1. Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect: utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(Suppl 2):S43–S52.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.
    1. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Khudairy AA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–1784. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0910-6.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlinska A, Buczek J, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–1563. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.
    1. Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Freiberg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3383–3390. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4091-y.
    1. Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.
    1. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.
    1. Endarti D, Riewpaiboon A, Thavorncharoensap M, Praditsitthikorn N, Hutubessy R, Kristina SA. Evaluation of health-related quality of life among patients with cervical cancer in Indonesia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(8):3345–3350. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.8.3345.
    1. Iskandar S, van Crevel R, Hidayat T, Siregar IM, Achmad TH, van der Ven AJ, et al. Severity of psychiatric and physical problems is associated with lower quality of life in methadone patients in Indonesia. Am J Addict. 2013;22(5):425–431. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.00334.x.
    1. Goudarzi R, Zeraati H, Akbari Sari A, Rashidian A, Mohammad K. Population-based preference weights for the EQ-5D health states using the visual analogue scale (VAS) in Iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18(2):e21584. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.21584.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55(7):e51–e8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283.
    1. Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17(1):70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–220. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003.
    1. Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goni JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1.
    1. Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005–1013. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x.
    1. Ramos- Goñi JM, Rivero-Arias O, Errea M, Stolk EA, Herdman M, Cabases JM. Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S33–S42. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0511-2.
    1. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Passchier J, et al. Employing quality control and feedback to the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol to improve the quality of data collection. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(5):1197–1208. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1445-9.
    1. Busschbach JJ, McDonnell J, Essink-Bot ML, van Hout BA. Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D. J Health Econ. 1999;18(5):551–571. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00008-9.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2016
    1. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. J Math Psychol. 2002;46(3):315–337. doi: 10.1006/jmps.2001.1390.
    1. Hawkins SA. Information processing strategies in riskless preference reversals: the prominence effect. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(1):1–26. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1048.
    1. Oppe M, van Hout B. The optimal hybrid: Experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. In: 27th scientific plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group-Proceedings. EuroQol Group Executive Office, Athens, Greece; 2010.
    1. Attema AE, Versteegh MM, Oppe M, Brouwer WB, Stolk EA. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376–392. doi: 10.1002/hec.2804.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. EuroQol Research Foundation. 2016. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
    1. Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. OHE Research Paper. 2015. . Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
    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(4):343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003.
    1. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Garay OU, Gianneo O, Fernandez G, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):323–333. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4.
    1. Ikeda S, Shiroiwa T, Igarashi A, Noto S, Fukuda T, Saito S, et al. Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. J Natl Inst Public Health. 2015;64:47–55.
    1. Kim SH, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1845–1852. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2.
    1. Uskul AK, Hynie M. Self-construal and concerns elicited by imagined and real health problems. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007;37(9):2156–2189. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00283.x.
    1. Kim HS, Sherman DK, Taylor SE. Culture and social support. Am Psychol. 2008;63(6):518–526. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.
    1. Luo N, Wang P, Thumboo J, Lim YW, Vrijhoef HJ. Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):495–507. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0142-1.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel