Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

19-08-2017

Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

Auteurs: Mihir Gandhi, Ying Xu, Nan Luo, Yin Bun Cheung

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2017

Abstract

Purpose

The EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) is a widely used health status instrument for cost-utility analysis of healthcare interventions. Recently, its 5-Level version (EQ-5D-5L) and a protocol for conducting valuation of its health states were developed. We propose four approaches for estimating the sample size for EQ-5D-5L valuation according to the standardized procedures of the protocol.

Methods

The first approach is for estimating mean health state utility values with a desired precision level using a regression model. The second approach, empirical in nature, determines a sample size based on mean absolute error in predicting health state values using a large-scale reference study. The last two approaches are for assessing the significance of regression coefficients of health state descriptors and to estimate the regression coefficients with a desired precision for predicting health state utility values.

Results

Using data from a Singaporean study, we estimated parameters that are useful for sample size determination, including the design effect. Each of the approaches was illustrated with examples and pragmatic recommendations were provided.

Conclusions

Capitalizing on the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol, we proposed four sample size estimation approaches which can help to decide an appropriate sample size for a value set study.

vorige artikel Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population

volgende artikel Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Alava, M. H., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18(9), 1–224. doi:10.3310/hta18090.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1.PubMedPubMedCentral

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. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.CrossRefPubMed

EuroQol Group: EQ-5D-5L Value Sets. (2016). Retrieved March 17, 2017, from http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html.

Devlin, N. J., & Krabbe, P. F. (2013). The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), 1. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.CrossRefPubMedCentral

EuroQol Group: EQ-5D-5L User Guide. (2015). Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf.

Luo, N., Wang, P., Thumboo, J., Lim, Y.-W., & Vrijhoef, H. J. (2014). Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: Modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(5), 495–507. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0142-1.CrossRefPubMed

Williams, R. L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics, 56(2), 645–646. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00645.x.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (2009). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer.

11.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., & Szende, A. (2007). EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Rotterdam: Springer.

12.

Chen, X., Ender, P., Michaelis, M., Wells, C. (2003). Regression with Stata. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/webbooks/reg/default.htm.

13.

Parzen, M., Lipsitz, S. R., & Dear, K. B. (1998). Does clustering affect the usual test statistics of no treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial? Biometrical Journal, 40(4), 385–402. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199808)40:4.CrossRef

14.

Kahan, B. C., & Morris, T. P. (2013). Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-58.CrossRef

15.

Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Wiley.

16.

Heeringa, S. G., West, B. T., & Berglund, P. A. (2010). Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRef

17.

Lee, E. S., & Forthofer, R. N. (2005). Analyzing complex survey data (Vol. 71). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

18.

Coretti, S., Ruggeri, M., & McNamee, P. (2014). The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 14(2), 221–233. doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.894462.CrossRef

19.

Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2015). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.

20.

Lamers, L. M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P. F., Krabbe, P. F., & Busschbach, J. J. (2006). The Dutch tariff: Results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics, 15(10), 1121–1132. doi:10.1002/hec.1124.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Nolan, C. M., Longworth, L., Lord, J., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Kon, S. S., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax, 71(6), 493–500. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Dolan, P., Dudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. (1994). The measurement and valuation of health, The first report on the main survey. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/reports/MVH%20First%20Report.pdf.

23.

Chevalier, J., & de Pouvourville, G. (2013). Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(1), 57–66. doi:10.1007/s10198-011-0351-x.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.317.CrossRef

25.

Lamers, L. M., Stalmeier, P. F., Krabbe, P. F., & Busschbach, J. J. (2006). Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decision Making, 26(2), 173–181. doi:10.1177/0272989X06286480.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Devlin, N. J., Hansen, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (2003). Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations-a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Economics, 12(7), 529–544. doi:10.1002/hec.741.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., Passchier, J., et al. (2016). Employing quality control and feedback to the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol to improve the quality of data collection. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1445-9.PubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies
Auteurs: Mihir Gandhi
Ying Xu
Nan Luo
Yin Bun Cheung
Publicatiedatum: 19-08-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1685-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2017

Maternal mental quality of life mediates the associations between intimate partner abuse against mothers and their children’s behaviours and quality of life in low-income Chinese families

Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease

Subjective evaluation of psychosocial well-being in children and youths with overweight or obesity: the impact of multidisciplinary obesity treatment

Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population

Association between chronic conditions and health-related quality of life: differences by level of urbanization in Peru

Quality of life among German parents of children with cystic fibrosis: the effects of being a single caregiver