Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2012

01-08-2012

Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions

Auteurs: Kim Rand-Hendriksen, Liv Ariane Augestad, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, Knut Stavem

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2012

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

EQ-5D tariffs are typically based on general population valuations studies, but whether valuations of experienced health (EH) or hypothetical health (HH) are more appropriate is disputed. Previous comparisons of valuations of EH and HH have focused on absolute differences in dimension-specific regression coefficients. We examined differences in the relative importance attributed to the EQ-5D dimensions between EH and HH valuations of EQ-5D states in the United States.

Methods

We used the regression model from the US EQ-5D valuation study on EH ratings from the 2000–2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and on HH ratings from the US EQ-5D valuation study conducted in 2001. We then compared patterns in the relative magnitudes of coefficients that corresponded to the five dimensions.

Results

In the HH model, self-care and pain/discomfort were the most important dimensions, while usual activities were the least important. In the EH model, usual activities were the most important dimension, while self-care was one of the least important.

Discussion

The findings reveal considerable differences between stated preferences for HH and ratings of EH, particularly for self-care and usual activities. The findings accentuate the importance of the debate about which groups’ values should be used in medical priority setting.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Drummond, M. F. (2007). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press. Drummond, M. F. (2007). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press.
2.
go back to reference Gold, M. R. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. USA: Oxford University Press. Gold, M. R. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. USA: Oxford University Press.
3.
go back to reference Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.
4.
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. 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.
5.
go back to reference Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.PubMedCrossRef Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference De Wit, G. A., Busschbach, J. J., & De Charro, F. T. (2000). Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: Whose values count? Health Economics, 9(2), 109–126. Available at: [Accessed July 20, 2010]. De Wit, G. A., Busschbach, J. J., & De Charro, F. T. (2000). Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: Whose values count? Health Economics, 9(2), 109–126. Available at: [Accessed July 20, 2010].
7.
go back to reference Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A., et al. (2005). Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(4), 201–208.PubMedCrossRef Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A., et al. (2005). Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(4), 201–208.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econmics, 18(3), 363–372. Available at: [Accessed April 29, 2010]. Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econmics, 18(3), 363–372. Available at: [Accessed April 29, 2010].
9.
go back to reference EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3). EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3).
10.
go back to reference Cohen, J. W., Cohen, S. B., & Banthin, J. S. (2009). The medical expenditure panel survey: A national information resource to support healthcare cost research and inform policy and practice. Medical Care, 47(7_Supplement_1):S44–S50. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a23e3a. Cohen, J. W., Cohen, S. B., & Banthin, J. S. (2009). The medical expenditure panel survey: A national information resource to support healthcare cost research and inform policy and practice. Medical Care, 47(7_Supplement_1):S44–S50. doi:10.​1097/​MLR.​0b013e3181a23e3a​.
11.
go back to reference Brazier, J., Deverill, M., & Green, C. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Service Research & Policy, 4(3), 174–184. Brazier, J., Deverill, M., & Green, C. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Service Research & Policy, 4(3), 174–184.
12.
go back to reference Yu, W. W., & Machlin, S. R. (2005). An examination of skewed health expenditure data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 30(2/3), 127. Yu, W. W., & Machlin, S. R. (2005). An examination of skewed health expenditure data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 30(2/3), 127.
14.
go back to reference Powdthavee, N. (2009). What happens to people before and after disability? Focusing effects, lead effects, and adaptation in different areas of life. Social Science & Medicine, 69(12), 1834–1844. Powdthavee, N. (2009). What happens to people before and after disability? Focusing effects, lead effects, and adaptation in different areas of life. Social Science & Medicine, 69(12), 1834–1844.
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions
Auteurs
Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Liv Ariane Augestad
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Knut Stavem
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2012
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0016-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2012

Quality of Life Research 6/2012 Naar de uitgave