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 4/2023

21-12-2022

Developing an Australian utility value set for MacNew-7D health states

Auteurs: Sanjeewa Kularatna, Gang Chen, Richard Norman, Clara Mukuria, Donna Rowen, Sameera Senanayake, Ruvini Hettiarachchi, Brendan Mulhern, Katie Fozzard, William Parsonage, Steven M. MacPhail

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2023

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

Background

A new preference-based measure (MacNew-7D) has recently been developed to allow condition-specific data to be used to capture the quality of life in health economic evaluations in cardiology; however, a general population value set has not yet been developed. This study developed a population utility value set for the MacNew-7D heart disease-specific instrument.

Methods

The discrete choice experiments (DCE) technique was chosen as the preference-elicitation method. The DCE asked respondents to compare two options and to state their preferences. The survey was conducted using an online panel of respondents, with quota sampling using age groups, sex and jurisdictions to achieve representativeness of the Australian population. The total design consisted of 200 choice sets, of which each respondent answered eight. Additionally, each respondent answered two quality control choice sets. The best-fitting models were selected on the basis of consistency, parsimony, and goodness of fit.

Results

In total, 1903 respondents were included in the analyses. The MacNew-7D utility value set ranged from −0.4456 to 1.000 for health states defined by the classification system. The best-fitting model retained all levels for five dimensions and collapsed one adjacent level for the other two dimensions. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses related to the inclusion or exclusion of dominancy and repeat tasks.

Conclusion

Findings indicated that the MacNew-7D utility value set is likely suitable for estimating quality-adjusted life years derived from the MacNew heart disease health-related quality–of-life questionnaire. This value set was derived from an Australian population-based sample and may not be generalisable to dissimilar populations.
vorige artikel Quality of life implications for elevated trait impulsivity in people with Parkinson’s disease
volgende artikel Censoring in the time trade-off valuation of worse-than-dead EQ-5D-5L health states: can a time-based willingness-to-accept question be the solution?
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
2.
Australian institute of health and welfare. Cardiovascular disease. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.
3.
Virani, S. S., Alonso, A., Aparicio, H. J., Benjamin, E. J., Bittencourt, M. S., Callaway, C. W., & CarsonChamberlainChengDellingElkind, A. P. A. M. S. F. N. M. S. (2021). Heart disease and stroke statistics-2021 update: A report from the American heart association. Circulation, 143(8), e254–e743.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing (Usual residence data). 2016.
5.
Medical Services Advisory Committee. 1387 - Cardiac Contractility Modulation (OPTIMIZER™ IVs). In: Health Department, Australia 2015.
6.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sacubitril valsartan for treating symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Technology appraisal. 2016;388(TA388).
7.
Kularatna, S., Byrnes, J., Chan, Y. K., Carrington, M. J., Stewart, S., & Scuffham, P. A. (2017). Comparison of contemporaneous responses for EQ-5D-3L and Minnesota living with heart failure; a case for disease specific multiattribute utility instrument in cardiovascular conditions. International Journal of Cardiology, 227, 172–176.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kularatna, S., Rowen, D., Mukuria, C., McPhail, S., Chen, G., Mulhern, B., Whitty, J. A., Byrnes, J., Scuffham, P., Atherton, J., & Höfer, S. (2021). Development of a preference-based heart disease-specific health state classification system using MacNew heart disease-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 31, 254–268.
9.
Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One method, many methodological choices: A structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics, 37(1), 29–43.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S. J., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A. S., & Rowen, D. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 637–49.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Comans, T. A., Nguyen, K.-H., Ratcliffe, J., Rowen, D., & Mulhern, B. (2020). Valuing the AD-5D dementia utility instrument: An estimation of a general population tariff. PharmacoEconomics, 38(8), 871–881.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31(1), 306–318.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bansback, N., Hole, A. R., Mulhern, B., & Tsuchiya, A. (2014). Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues. Social Science and Medicine, 114, 38–48.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., & King, M. T. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–401.CrossRefPubMed
15.
ChoiceMetrics (2012) Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide, Australia.
16.
Johnson, F., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health, 16(1), 3–13.CrossRef
17.
Jonker, M. F., Donkers, B., de Bekker-Grob, E., & Stolk, E. A. (2019). Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics., 28(3), 350–363.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Coast, J., Flynn, T. N., Salisbury, C., Louviere, J., & Peters, T. J. (2006). Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: A randomised trial. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 5(4), 249–260.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Johnson, F. R., Yang, J. C., & Reed, S. D. (2019). The internal validity of discrete choice experiment data: A testing tool for quantitative assessments. Value Health, 22(2), 157–160.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Hettiarachchi, R., Kularatna, S., Byrnes, J., Mulhern, B., Chen, G., & Scuffham, P. A. (2020). Valuation study for a preference-based quality of life measure for dental caries (dental caries utility index-DCUI) among Australian adolescents-study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 10(10), e038626.
22.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). Academic Press.
23.
Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., Krabbe, P. F., Revicki, D., Viney, R., Devlin, N., & Feeny, D. (2015). A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33(8), 867–877.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
McPhail, S., & Haines, T. (2010). Response shift, recall bias and their effect on measuring change in health-related quality of life amongst older hospital patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
King, M. T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E. J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., & McTaggart-Cowen, H. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics., 36(2), 225–38.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Höfer, S., Lim, L., Guyatt, G., & Oldridge, N. (2004). The MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument: A summary. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Kularatna, S., Whitty, J. A., Johnson, N. W., Jayasinghe, R., & Scuffham, P. A. (2015). Valuing EQ-5D health states for Sri Lanka. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1785–1793.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Hauber, A. B., González, J. M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., Prior, T., Marshall, D. A., Cunningham, C., & IJzermanBridges, M. J. J. F. (2016). Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value in Health, 19(4), 300–315.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bilbao, A., Escobar, A., García-Perez, L., Navarro, G., & Quirós, R. (2016). The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: Comparison of different factor structures. Health and quality of life outcomes, 14, 23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Spertus, J. A., Winder, J. A., Dewhurst, T. A., Deyo, R. A., Prodzinski, J., McDonell, M., & Fihn, S. D. (1995). Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(2), 333–41.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Green, C. P., Porter, C. B., Bresnahan, D. R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Developing an Australian utility value set for MacNew-7D health states
Auteurs
Sanjeewa Kularatna
Gang Chen
Richard Norman
Clara Mukuria
Donna Rowen
Sameera Senanayake
Ruvini Hettiarachchi
Brendan Mulhern
Katie Fozzard
William Parsonage
Steven M. MacPhail
Publicatiedatum
21-12-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03325-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2023

Quality of Life Research 4/2023 Naar de uitgave

Review

Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OriginalPaper

What is measured by the composite, single-item pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D-5L? An exploratory analysis

OriginalPaper

Vision-related quality of life compared to generic measures in retinoblastoma survivors

OriginalPaper

Life satisfaction 18 months and 10 years following spinal cord injury: results from a New Zealand prospective cohort study

OriginalPaper

Hypothetical versus experienced health state valuation: a qualitative study of adult general public views and preferences

OriginalPaper

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years’ experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex