Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The standard gamble (SG) method is the gold standard for valuing health states as a utility, although it is accepted that it is difficult to valuate health states. This study was conducted in order to compare the SG with the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques in terms of their feasibility, comparability, and reliability in a valuation survey of the general Korean population.
Five-hundred members of the general Korean population were recruited using a multi-stage quota sampling method in Seoul and its surrounding areas, Korea. Respondents evaluated 9 EQ-5D-5L health states using a visual analogue scale (VAS), SG, and TTO during a personal interview. Feasibility was assessed in aspects of the level of difficulty, administration time, and inconsistent responses. Comparability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland–Altman approach. Test–retest reliability was analyzed using the ICC.
Of the three methods, VAS was the easiest and quickest method to respond. The SG method did not differ significantly compared to the TTO method in administration time as well as the level of difficulty. The SG and TTO values were highly correlated (r = 0.992), and the average mean difference between the SG and the TTO values was 0.034. The ICCs of the VAS, SG, and TTO scores were 0.906, 0.841, and 0.827, respectively.
This study suggests that the SG method compared with the VAS and TTO method was feasible and offered a reliable tool for population-based, health state valuation studies in Korea.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Weinstein, M., Siegel, J., Gold, M., Kamlet, M., & Russell, L. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (p. 55). New York: Oxford University.
EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208. CrossRef
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wee, H. L., Li, S. C., Xie, F., Zhang, X. H., Luo, N., Feeny, D., et al. (2008). Validity, feasibility and acceptability of time trade-off and standard gamble assessments in health valuation studies: A study in a multiethnic Asian population in Singapore. Value in health, 11(Suppl 1), S3–S10. CrossRefPubMed
Torrance, G. W. (1976). Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10(3), 129–136. CrossRef
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRef
Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., Frost, H., et al. (2006). Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: An assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine, 31(7), 815–822. CrossRefPubMed
Ramos-Goni, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabases, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2014). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care.
EuroQoL group. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument, version 1. 2011.
Gudex, C. (1994). Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods. In.: University of York; http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/occasionalpapers/CHE%20Occasional%20Paper%2020.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2010.
Gudex, C. (1994). Standard Gamble user manual: props and self-completion methods. In.: University of York; http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/occasionalpapers/CHE%20Occasional%20Paper%2021.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2010.
Badia, X., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Social Science & Medicine, 49(7), 943–950. CrossRef
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1983). Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician, 32, 307–317. CrossRef
Shmueli, A. (2007). It might be premature to reject the assumption of a power curve relationship between VAS and SG data: three comments on Stevens, McCabe and Brazier’s ‘Mapping between VAS and SG data; results from the UK HUI Index 2 valuation survey’. Health Economics, 16(7), 755–758. CrossRefPubMed
Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lauridsen, J., & Pedersen, K. M. (2008). An assessment of inconsistencies in the valuation of hypothetical EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states: Syddansk Universitet. http://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjf5qSk69nSAhWJwrwKHaJCA3AQFggYMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdu.dk%2F~%2Fmedia%2FF22CC688B6174B879D8003BC161E471A.ashx&usg=AFQjCNGFWWqcaoqT3y47qG2YBzcJ7P2bZA. Accessed 15 Jan 2010.
Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (2005). EQ-5D concepts and method. New York: Springer. CrossRef
Neumann, P. J., Gillian, D. S., Louise, B. R., Joanna, E. S., & Theodore, G. G. (Eds.). (2016). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bakker, C., Rutten, M., van Doorslaer, E., Bennett, K., & van der Linden, S. (1994). Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or fibromyalgia. The Journal of Rheumatology, 21(2), 269–274. PubMed
Jo, M.W. (2005). Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with time-trade-off method in South Korea. PhD thesis. University of Ulsan, Department of preventive medicine.
Furlong, W., Feeny, D,,Torrance, G. W., Barr, R., & Horsman, J. (1990). Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 90-9.
- Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population
- Springer International Publishing