Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0496-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To estimate Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states using general population health survey data.
Approximately 45,000 individuals valued their current health status by means of time trade off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) methods and answered the EQ-5D questionnaire, making it possible to model the association between the experience-based TTO and VAS values and the EQ-5D dimensions and severity levels. The association between TTO and VAS values and the different severity levels of respondents’ answers on a self-rated health (SRH) question was assessed.
Almost all dimensions (except usual activity) and severity levels had less impact on TTO valuations compared with the UK study based on hypothetical values. Anxiety/depression had the greatest impact on both TTO and VAS values. TTO and VAS values were consistently related to SRH. The inclusion of age, sex, education and socioeconomic group affected the main effect coefficients and the explanatory power modestly.
A value set for EQ-5D health states based on Swedish valuations has been lacking. Several authors have recently advocated the normative standpoint of using experience-based values. Guidelines of economic evaluation for reimbursement decisions in Sweden recommend the use of experience-based values for QALY calculations. Our results that anxiety/depression had the greatest impact on both TTO and VAS values underline the importance of mental health for individuals’ overall HRQoL. Using population surveys is in line with recent thinking on valuing health states and could reduce some of the focusing effects potentially appearing in hypothetical valuation studies.
Supplementary material (PDF 1030 kb)11136_2013_496_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford Medical Publications.
Broome, J. (1993). QALYs. Journal of Public Economics, 50, 149–167. CrossRef
Dolan, P. (2000). The measurement for health-related quality-of-life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In A. J. Culyer & J. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (pp. 1723–1760). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (Eds.). (2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dolan, P. (2008). Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 3, 69–77.
Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. The Economic Journal, 118, 215–234. CrossRef
Busschbach, J. J., Weijnen, T., Nieuwenhuizen, M., Oppe, S., Badia, X., Dolan, P., et al. (2003). A comparison of EQ-5D time trade-off values obtained in Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. In R. Brooks, R. Rabin, & F. de Charro (Eds.), The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective (pp. 143–165). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRef
Kharroubi, S. A., O’Hagan, A., & Brazier, J. E. (2010). A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health state valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Statistics in Medicine, 29(15), 1622–1634. PubMed
Nan, L., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J., & Coons, S. J. (2007). A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Medical Decision Making, 27(3), 321–326. CrossRef
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kind, P. (2009). Valuing EQ-5D health states—a VAStly simpler solution? In J. Busschbach, R. Rabin, & F. De Charro (Eds.), 24th scientific plenary meeting of the EuroQoL group— Proceedings, 2009 Sept 13– 15; Kijkduin- The Hague, The Netherlands (pp. 319–337). Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group Executive Office.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London, 23 June 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2012.
The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). (2003). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2). Stockholm: The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-economic-evaluations-LFNAR-2003-2.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2012.
Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D. G. L., & Borgquist, L. (1999). Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. European Journal of Public Health, 9(3), 211–217. CrossRef
Williams, A. (1995). The measurement and valuation of health: A chronicle. Centre for Health Economics Discussion paper 136. York: University of York.
White, A. (1980). A heteroscedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838. CrossRef
SAS Institute Inc. (2006). Base SAS ® 9.2. Procedures Guide (Second Ed, Vols. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Björk, S., & Althin, R. (1991). Health states considered worse than being dead. In S. Björk (Ed.), EuroQol Conference Proceedings, IHE Working paper, 1991 Sept, Lund, Sweden (pp. 83–86). Lund: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE).
- Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states
- Springer International Publishing