Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies

Nick Bansback, Aki Tsuchiya, John Brazier, Aslam Anis, Nick Bansback, Aki Tsuchiya, John Brazier, Aslam Anis

Abstract

Background: The EQ-5D is a preference based instrument which provides a description of a respondent's health status, and an empirically derived value for that health state often from a representative sample of the general population. It is commonly used to derive Quality Adjusted Life Year calculations (QALY) in economic evaluations. However, values for health states have been found to differ between countries. The objective of this study was to develop a set of values for the EQ-5D health states for use in Canada.

Methods: Values for 48 different EQ-5D health states were elicited using the Time Trade Off (TTO) via a web survey in English. A random effect model was fitted to the data to estimate values for all 243 health states of the EQ-5D. Various model specifications were explored. Comparisons with EQ-5D values from the UK and US were made. Sensitivity analysis explored different transformations of values worse than dead, and exclusion criteria of subjects.

Results: The final model was estimated from the values of 1145 subjects with socio-demographics broadly representative of Canadian general population with the exception of Quebec. This yielded a good fit with observed TTO values, with an overall R2 of 0.403 and a mean absolute error of 0.044.

Conclusion: A preference-weight algorithm for Canadian studies that include the EQ-5D is developed. The primary limitations regarded the representativeness of the final sample, given the language used (English only), the method of recruitment, and the difficulty in the task. Insights into potential issues for conducting valuation studies in countries as large and diverse as Canada are gained.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Example of the TTO task…
Figure 1. Example of the TTO task for better and worse than dead health states.
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis – comparison between…
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis – comparison between predicted values from the primary model with (i) those using the full sample and (ii) using a linear WTD transformation.
Figure 3. Comparison of observed and predicted…
Figure 3. Comparison of observed and predicted values from Canada with those in the UK and US.

References

    1. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.
    1. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–9.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
    1. EuroQol G. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the Measurement of Health Utilities in Published Cost-Utility Analyses. Value Health. 2006;9:213–218.
    1. Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Centre for Health Economics Discussion paper 136. 1995. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, Kind P, Coons SJ. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care. 2005;43:221–228.
    1. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Series: EuroQol Group Monographs. 2007;2
    1. Drolet M, Brisson M, Schmader KE, Levin MJ, Johnson R, et al. The impact of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia on health-related quality of life: a prospective study. CMAJ. 2010;182:1731–1736.
    1. Conner-Spady B, Sanmartin C, Johnston G, McGurran J, Kehler M, et al. Willingness of patients to change surgeons for a shorter waiting time for joint arthroplasty. CMAJ. 2008;179:327–332.
    1. Sumukadas D, Witham MD, Struthers AD, McMurdo ME. Effect of perindopril on physical function in elderly people with functional impairment: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2007;177:867–874.
    1. Cameron C, Coyle D, Ur E, Klarenbach S. Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed without insulin. CMAJ. 2010;182:28–34.
    1. Cameron CG, Bennett HA. Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus. CMAJ. 2009;180:400–407.
    1. Dendukuri N, Khetani K, McIsaac M, Brophy J. Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. CMAJ. 2007;176:1429–1434.
    1. Regier DA, Sunderji R, Lynd LD, Gin K, Marra CA. Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy. CMAJ. 2006;174:1847–1852.
    1. Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005;172:345–351.
    1. Ware MA, Wang T, Shapiro S, Robinson A, Ducruet T, et al. Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2010;182:E694–701.
    1. Torrance GW, Sackett D, Thomas W. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programmes. Health Services Research. 1972;7:118–133.
    1. Gudex C. Time Trade-off User Manual: Props and Self-completion Methods. Centre for Health Economics Discussion paper 20. 1994. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Kuhfeld W. Orthogonal arrays. SAS. 1997. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, Krabbe PFM, Busschbach JJV. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1121–1132.
    1. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11:341–353.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
    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;43:203.
    1. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams A. Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations – a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Econ. 2003;12:529–544.
    1. Canada Statistics. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) v 3.1. 2006. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38:115–121.
    1. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. 344
    1. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:459–466.
    1. Jelsma J, Hansen K, de Weerdt W, de Cock P, Kind P. How do Zimbabweans value health states? Population Health Metrics. 2003;1:11.
    1. Canada Statistics. Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS). 2009. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Statistics Canada. Census Profile of Federal Electoral Districts (2003 Representation Order): Language, Mobility and Migration and Immigration and Citizenship. 2006. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Statistics Canada. Residential Telephone Service Survey. 2008. Available: . Accessed 2010 Jan 12.
    1. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.
    1. McIntosh CN, Gorber SC, Bernier J, Berthelot JM. Eliciting Canadian population preferences for health states using the Classification and Measurement System of Functional Health (CLAMES). Chronic Dis Can. 2007;28:29–41.
    1. Norman R, King MT, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, et al. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:499–508.
    1. Salomon J. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics. 2003;1:12.
    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;13:1005–1013.
    1. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics. 2011 In Press (PMID 22197308)
    1. Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death - Consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45:238–244.
    1. Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform Time Trade Off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20:348–361.
    1. Attema AE, Versteegh MM, Oppe M, Brouwer WBF, Stolk EA. Lead time TTO: Leading to better health state valuations? Erasmus University Rotterdam. 2011. Available: . Accessed 2011 Jan 12.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj