Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2023

10-03-2023

A national survey of Iranian general population to estimate a value set for the EQ-5D-5L

Auteurs: Somayeh Afshari, Rajabali Daroudi, Reza Goudarzi, Alireza Mahboub–Ahari, Mehdi Yaseri, Ali Akbari Sari, Hosein Ameri, Sajjad Bahariniya, Alireza Oliaei-Manesh, Khalil Kalavani, Zahra Zare, Elham Hasannezhad, Mohammadamin Mirzaei, Zahra Amiri

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2023

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objectives

The main aim of this study is to estimate a national value set of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire for Iran.

Methods

The composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods; and the protocol for EuroQol Portable Valuation Technology (EQ-PVT) were used to estimate the Iran national value set. 1179 face-to-face computer-assisted interviews were conducted with adults that were recruited from five Iran major cities in 2021. Generalized least squares, Tobit, heteroskedastic, logit, and hybrid models were used to analyze the data and to identify the best fitting model.

Results

According to the logical consistency of the parameters, significance levels and prediction accuracy indices of the MAE; a heteroscedastic censored Tobit hybrid model combining cTTO and DCE responses was considered as the best fitting model to estimate the final value set. The predicted values ranged from − 1.19 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for full health (11111), with 53.6% of the predicted values being negative. Mobility was the most influential dimension on health state preference values.

Conclusions

The present study estimated a national EQ-5D-5L value set for Iranian policy makers and researchers. The value set enables the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire to use to calculate QALYs to assist the priority setting and efficient allocation of limited healthcare resources.
vorige artikel Relationship between secondary health conditions and life satisfaction in persons with spinal cord injury: study across twenty-one countries
volgende artikel Independent and joint associations of cardiorespiratory fitness and weight status with health-related quality of life among Brazilian adolescents
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Health NIf, Excellence C. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2012.
2.
Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: The basics. Value In Health, 12, S5–S9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Brooks R, Group E. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRef
4.
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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., et al. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(8), 1245–1257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y.-S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Yousefi, M., Nahvijou, A., Sari, A. A., & Ameri, H. (2021). Mapping QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D-V2 in patients with colorectal and breast cancer from a developing country. Value in Health Regional Issues, 24, 57–66.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Atfannezhad, M., Sharifi, M., Madadizadeh, F., & Ameri, H. (2022). Utility values in colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Cancer Investigation, 40(1), 46–54.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Yousefi, M., Safari, H., Akbari Sari, A., Raei, B., & Ameri, H. (2019). Assessing the performance of direct and indirect utility eliciting methods in patients with colorectal cancer: EQ-5D-5L versus C-TTO. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 19(4), 259–270.CrossRef
12.
Nahvijou, A., Safari, H., & Ameri, H. (2020). Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-5L with two versions of the SF-6Dv2 in patients with breast cancer. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 20(2), 183–194.CrossRef
13.
Zare, F., Ameri, H., Madadizadeh, F., & Reza, A. M. (2020). Health-related quality of life and its associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SAGE Open Medicine, 8, 2050312120965314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Arab-Zozani, M., Safari, H., Dori, Z., Afshari, S., Ameri, H., Namiranian, N., et al. (2022). Estimating utility values for health states of DFU patients using EQ-5D-5L and cTTO. The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds., 21(1), 41–49.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ahadi, M. S., Vahidpour, N., Togha, M., Daroudi, R., Nadjafi-Semnani, F., Mohammadshirazi, Z., et al. (2021). Assessment of utility in migraine: Mapping the migraine-specific questionnaire to the EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health Regional Issues., 25, 57–63.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Akbari Sari, A., Karimi, F., Emrani, Z., Zeraati, H., Olyaeemanesh, A., & Daroudi, R. (2021). The impact of common chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Iran using EQ-5D-5L. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 19(1), 1–7.CrossRef
17.
18.
Ameri, H., Safari, H., Yousefi, M., Goudarzi, R., & Soofi, M. (2020). Interim value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Iran using the crosswalk method. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 34, 121.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Stolk, E., Ludwig, K., Rand, K., van Hout, B., & Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2019). Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 22(1), 23–30.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Oppe, M., Slaap, B., Busschbach, J. J., & Stolk, E. (2017). Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value in Health, 20(3), 466–473.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2017). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care, 55(7), e51–e58.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Welie, A. G., Gebretekle, G. B., Stolk, E., Mukuria, C., Krahn, M. D., Enquoselassie, F., et al. (2020). Valuing health state: An EQ-5D-5L value set for Ethiopians. Value in Health Regional Issues, 22, 7–14.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Al Shabasy, S., Abbassi, M., Finch, A., Roudijk, B., Baines, D., & Farid, S. (2022). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Egypt. PharmacoEconomics, 40(4), 433–447.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., et al. (2017). The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics, 35(11), 1153–1165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M., De Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health, 19(4), 343–352.CrossRef
29.
Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pattanaphesaj, J., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Tongsiri, S., Ingsrisawang, L., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2018). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 18(5), 551–558.CrossRef
31.
32.
Mai, V. Q., Sun, S., Minh, H. V., Luo, N., Giang, K. B., Lindholm, L., et al. (2020). An EQ-5D-5L value set for Vietnam. Quality of Life Research, 29(7), 1923–1933.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Gildner, T. E., Snodgrass, J. J., Evans, C., & Kowal, P. (2019). Associations between physical function and subjective well-being in older adults from low-and middle-income countries: Results from the study on global ageing and adult health (SAGE). Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 27(2), 213–221.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2016). Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value in Health, 19(5), 648–654.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Jensen, C. E., Sørensen, S. S., Gudex, C., Jensen, M. B., Pedersen, K. M., & Ehlers, L. H. (2021). The Danish EQ-5D-5L value set: A hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(4), 579–591.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Metagegevens
Titel
A national survey of Iranian general population to estimate a value set for the EQ-5D-5L
Auteurs
Somayeh Afshari
Rajabali Daroudi
Reza Goudarzi
Alireza Mahboub–Ahari
Mehdi Yaseri
Ali Akbari Sari
Hosein Ameri
Sajjad Bahariniya
Alireza Oliaei-Manesh
Khalil Kalavani
Zahra Zare
Elham Hasannezhad
Mohammadamin Mirzaei
Zahra Amiri
Publicatiedatum
10-03-2023
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03378-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2023

Quality of Life Research 7/2023 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Mapping PedsQL™ scores to CHU9D utility weights for children with chronic conditions in a multi-ethnic and deprived metropolitan population

OriginalPaper

Quantifying health-related quality of life in Malaysian type 2 diabetes: focusing on complication types and severity

OriginalPaper

Statin withdrawal and health-related quality of life in a primary cardiovascular prevention cohort

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life and medication use among individuals with Angelman syndrome

OriginalPaper

Development of a diverse set of standard short forms based on the EORTC CAT Core item banks

Review

Quality of life of patients and caregivers affected by bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review