Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2014

01-10-2014 | Brief Communication

A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA

Auteurs: Susan Clemens, Nelufa Begum, Catherine Harper, Jennifer A. Whitty, Paul A. Scuffham

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

To provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3L by age and gender based on a representative adult sample in Queensland, Australia; to assess differences in health-related quality of life by applying the Australian, UK and USA value sets to these data; and to assess differences in utility scores for key preventive health indicators.

Methods

A cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interview survey (March–June 2011) with 5,555 adults. Respondents rated their impairment (none, moderate, severe problems) across five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety or depression) using the validated EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life instrument. Utility score indexes were derived using the Australian, UK and USA value sets.

Results

Forty per cent of adults reported pain and discomfort while 3 % indicated problems with self-care. Approximately one in six had limitations with mobility, usual activities or anxiety or depression. The three value sets performed similarly in discriminating differences based on most characteristics, and clinically meaningful differences were seen for age, body weight, physical activity and daily smoking. There were no differences in utility scores for gender.

Conclusions

This is the first study to report general population findings for the Australian EQ-5D-3L value set. Overall, the Australian value set performed comparably with other value sets commonly used in the Australian population; however, differences were observed. Results will enable further refinement to health and economic studies in an Australian-specific context.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
2.
go back to reference Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
3.
go back to reference Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRef Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRef Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.PubMedCrossRef Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker and R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Kluver Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker and R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Kluver Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
9.
go back to reference Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Scuffham, P. A., et al. (2008). The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: A review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(4), 297–310.PubMedCrossRef Scuffham, P. A., et al. (2008). The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: A review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(4), 297–310.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.CrossRef Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRef Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Queensland Health. (2012). The health of Queenslanders 2012: advancing good health. Fourth report of the Chief Health Officer [internet]. Queensland Health: Brisbane. (Cited 2013 May 7). Queensland Health. (2012). The health of Queenslanders 2012: advancing good health. Fourth report of the Chief Health Officer [internet]. Queensland Health: Brisbane. (Cited 2013 May 7).
19.
go back to reference Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies. Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies.
21.
go back to reference Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May). Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May).
Metagegevens
Titel
A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA
Auteurs
Susan Clemens
Nelufa Begum
Catherine Harper
Jennifer A. Whitty
Paul A. Scuffham
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2014

Quality of Life Research 8/2014 Naar de uitgave