Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong

Eliza L Y Wong, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi, Annie W L Cheung, Amy Y K Wong, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Eliza L Y Wong, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi, Annie W L Cheung, Amy Y K Wong, Oliver Rivero-Arias

Abstract

Background: An international valuation protocol exists for obtaining societal values for each of the 3125 health states of the five-level EuroQol-five dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. A feedback module (FM) that can be related to theoretical models used in behavioral economics was recently included in this protocol.

Objectives: Our objective was to assess the impact of using an FM to estimate an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

Methods: EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited using a composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and a discrete-choice (DC) experiment. Use of the FM according to participant characteristics and the impact of the FM on the number of inconsistent C-TTO responses were assessed. We employed a main-effects hybrid model that combined data from both elicitation techniques.

Results: In total, 1014 individuals completed the survey. The sample was representative of the general Chinese Hong Kong population in terms of sex, educational attainment, marital status, and most age groups but not for employment status. The use of the FM reduced the number of C-TTO inconsistencies. Participant characteristics differed significantly between those who used and did not use the FM. The model without a constant resulted in logical consistent coefficients and was therefore selected as the model to produce the value set. The predicted EQ-5D-5L values ranged from -0.864 to 1.

Conclusions: The use of an FM to allow participants to exclude C-TTO responses reduced the number of inconsistent responses and improved the quality of the data when estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

This study was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund from the Food and Health Bureau of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) (Grant number: HMRF11120491). The study sponsors had no role in the analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Conflict of interest

Oliver Rivero-Arias and Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi are members of the EuroQol Group. Eliza LY Wong, Annie WL Cheung, and Amy YK Wong have no potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Screenshot of feedback module of composite time trade-off (C-TTO) responses (reproduced with permission from EuroQol Group)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kernel density function of predicted values for all 3125 health states for EQ-5D-5L value sets in Asian countries

References

    1. EuroQol G. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Kind P, Brooks RG, Rabin R. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.
    1. Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):395–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin H-W, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;25(5):365–384. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002.
    1. Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014
    1. Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–243. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.122283.
    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. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, 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. Devlin N, Krabbe P. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Issue 1 Suppl):1–3. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.
    1. Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393–402. doi: 10.1002/hec.1069.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S25–S31. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0505-0.
    1. Salomon J. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr. 2003;1(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-1-12.
    1. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O’Hagan A, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):418–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.008.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017
    1. Ludwig K, von der Schulenburg J-MG, Greiner W. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population—an exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0617-9.
    1. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):76–83. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800115.
    1. Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2005;14(1):39–53. doi: 10.1002/hec.895.
    1. Augestad LA, Stavem K, Kristiansen IS, Samuelsen CH, Rand-Hendriksen K. Influenced from the start: anchoring bias in time trade-off valuations. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:2179–2191. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1266-x.
    1. Edelaar-Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM, Van Den Hout WB. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(5):655–665. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14524989.
    1. Al Sayah F, Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Xie F, Bansback N, Canadian EQDLVSG Health literacy and logical inconsistencies in valuations of hypothetical health states: results from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1483–1492. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1495-z.
    1. Brañas-Garza P, Smith J. Cognitive abilities and economic behavior. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.06.005.
    1. Agranov M, Caplin A, Tergiman C. Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games. J Econ Sci Assoc. 2015;1(2):146–157. doi: 10.1007/s40881-015-0003-5.
    1. Agranov M, Potamites E, Schotter A, Tergiman C. Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: an experimental study. Games Econ Behav. 2012;75(2):449–463. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2012.02.002.
    1. Schulz JF, Fischbacher U, Thöni C, Utikal V. Affect and fairness: dictator games under cognitive load. J Econ Psychol. 2014;41:77–87. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.007.
    1. Benito-Ostolaza JM, Hernández P, Sanchis-Llopis JA. Do individuals with higher cognitive ability play more strategically? J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:5–11. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.01.005.
    1. Kiss HJ, Rodriguez-Lara I, Rosa-García A. Think twice before running! Bank runs and cognitive abilities. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.01.006.
    1. Corgnet B, Espín AM, Hernán-González R, Kujal P, Rassenti S. To trust, or not to trust: cognitive reflection in trust games. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.008.
    1. Lohse J. Smart or selfish—when smart guys finish nice. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:28–40. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.002.
    1. Ramos-Goni JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabases 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–e58. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283.
    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. 2015
    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. 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. 2017
    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
    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):297–510. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003.
    1. Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Tilling C, Wilkinson G, et al. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517–532. doi: 10.1002/hec.2819.
    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(3):348–361. doi: 10.1002/hec.1596.
    1. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
    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. Krabbe PF, Devlin NJ, Stolk EA, Shah KK, Oppe M, van Hout B, et al. Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care. 2014;52(11):935–943. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178.
    1. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
    1. Alloway TP, Passolunghi MC. The relationship between working memory, IQ, and mathematical skills in children. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(1):133–137. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.013.
    1. Alloway TP, Alloway RG. Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010;106(1):20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003.
    1. Oppe M, van Hout B, editors. The optimal hybrid: experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. EuroQol Group Proceedings, 2013.
    1. Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):328–340. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14559542.
    1. Ramos-Goñi J, Craig AM, Oppe M, Van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2016.
    1. Feng Y, Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Mulhern B, van Hout B. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to english data. Health Econ. 2017
    1. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station: Stata Press; 2009.
    1. Shah K, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. An empirical study of two alternative comparators for use in time trade-off studies. Value Health. 2016;19(1):53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.012.
    1. StataCorp. Stata statistical software release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP2014.
    1. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;19(6):716–723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
    1. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–669. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.
    1. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goni JM, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9(Epub 10 July 2017).
    1. Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, Saito S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–654. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834.
    1. Karimi M, Brazier J, Paisley S. The effect of reflection and deliberation on health state values. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2016.
    1. Robinson S, Bryan S. Does the process of deliberation change individuals’ health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique. Value Health. 2013;16(5):806–813. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1633.
    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 Mak. 2014;34(1):8–20. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13480852.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    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(3):221–228. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00004.
    1. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–353. doi: 10.1002/hec.673.
    1. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PloS One. 2012;7(2):e31115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031115.
    1. Viney R, Norman R, King MT, Cronin P, Street DJ, Knox S, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14(6):928–936. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.009.
    1. Olken BA. Promises and perils of pre-analysis plans. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):61–80. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.3.61.
    1. Coffman LC, Niederle M. Pre-analysis plans have limited upside, especially where replications are feasible. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):81–97. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.3.81.
    1. Kong X, Yang Y, Gao J, Guan J, Liu Y, Wang R, et al. Overview of the health care system in Hong Kong and its referential significance to mainland China. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015;78(10):569–573. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.02.006.
    1. Census and Statistics Department. 2016 Population by-census: Summary results. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2017. p. 1–164. .
    1. Census and Statistics Department. 2011 Population census main report: Volume I. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2012. p. 1–309. .

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅