Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises

Value in Health

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 570-577

  Whitehurst, David G T ^a,b   Norman, Richard ^c   Brazier, John E ^d   Viney, Rosalie ^c  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

comparative analysis; discrete choice experiment; EQ 5D; SF 6D; standard gamble; time trade off

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EUROQOL 5D; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFERENTIAL STATISTICS; LEG ULCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SHORT FORM 6D; STATISTICS;

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EQ-5D; SF-6D; STANDARD GAMBLE; TIME TRADE-OFF;

ALGORITHMS; AUSTRALIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84906242519     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1720     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada 3rd ed 2006 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Ottawa, Canada
2. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses 1995 Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra, Australia
3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 2013 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence London
4. J. Raftery NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies BMJ 323 2001 1300 1303
5. I. Williams, S. McIver, D. Moore, and S. Bryan The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation Health Technol Assess 12 2008 1 175
6. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Templates/Guidance for Submission. Available from: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Submission-Process/ Submission-Guidance-and-Templates-for-Industry/Templates-Guidance-for- Submission/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission. [Accessed April 19, 2014].
7. M. Gold, J. Siegel, L. Russell, and M. Weinstein Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine 1996 Oxford University Press New York
8. J. Brazier, R. Akehurst, and A. Brennan et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 4 2005 201 208
9. A. McGuire Theoretical concepts in the economic evaluation of health care M.F. Drummond, A. Maguire, Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice 2001 Oxford University Press New York
10. G.W. Torrance Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to Pharmacoeconomics 24 2006 1069 1078
11. H. Sintonen The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications Ann Med 33 2001 328 336
12. G. Hawthorne, J. Richardson, and R. Osborne The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life Qual Life Res 8 1999 209 224
13. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instruments. Available from: http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/choice-of-aqol-instrument. [Accessed April 19, 2014].
14. R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play Health 37 1996 53 72
15. M. Herdman, C. Gudex, and A. Lloyd et al. X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res 20 2011 1727 1736
16. W.J. Furlong, D.H. Feeny, G.W. Torrance, and R.D. Barr The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies Ann Med 33 2001 375 384
17. W.J. Seiber, E.J. Groessl, and K.M. David et al. Quality of Well Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) Scale User's Manual 2008 Health Services Research Center San Diego, CA (Available from: https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual. pdf. [Accessed April 19, 2014])
18. J. Brazier, J. Roberts, and M. Deverill The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 J Health Econ 21 2002 271 292
19. J.E. Brazier, and J. Roberts The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12 Med Care 42 2004 851 859
20. J.E. Brazier, D. Rowen, and I. Mavranezouli et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition specific measures (and other patient based measures of outcome) Health Technol Assess 16 2012 1 114
21. D. Rowen, J. Brazier, and T. Young et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30 Value Health 14 2011 721 731
22. Y. Yang, J.E. Brazier, A. Tsuchiya, and T.A. Young Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire Med Decis Making 31 2011 281 291
23. M. Joore, D. Brunenberg, and P. Nelemans et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies Value Health 13 2010 222 229
24. T.H. Sach, G.R. Barton, and C. Jenkinson et al. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med Care 47 2009 889 894
25. D.G.T. Whitehurst, S. Bryan, and M. Lewis Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores Med Decis Making 31 2011 E34 E44
26. D.G. Whitehurst, V.K. Noonan, M.F. Dvorak, and S. Bryan A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research Spinal Cord 50 2012 646 654
27. G.R. Barton, J. Bankart, and A.C. Davis A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures Int J Audiol 44 2005 157 163
28. J. Brazier, J. Roberts, A. Tsuchiya, and J. Busschbach A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups Health Econ 13 2004 873 884
29. D. Feeny, L. Wu, and K. Eng Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients Qual Life Res 13 2004 1659 1670
30. C.A. Marra, J.M. Esdaile, and D. Guh et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis Med Care 42 2004 1125 1131
31. C.M. McDonough, and A.N. Tosteson Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making Pharmacoeconomics 25 2007 93 106
32. J. Moock, and T. Kohlmann Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders Qual Life Res 17 2008 485 495
33. D.G. Whitehurst, and S. Bryan Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable: but why should we expect them to be? Value Health 14 2011 531 538
34. B.M. Craig, A.S. Pickard, E. Stolk, and J.E. Brazier US valuation of the SF-6D Med Decis Making 33 2013 793 803
35. A. Tsuchiya, J. Brazier, and J. Roberts Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets J Health Econ 25 2006 334 346
36. D.G. Fryback, M. Palta, and D. Cherepanov et al. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis Med Decis Making 30 2010 5 15
37. P. Dolan, C. Gudex, P. Kind, and A. Williams A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK General Population Survey. Discussion Paper No. 138 1995 Centre for Health Economics York
38. H. Bleichrodt A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities Health Econ 11 2002 447 456
39. P. Dolan, and M. Jones-Lee The time trade-off: a note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting J Health Econ 16 1997 731 739
40. N. Bansback, J. Brazier, A. Tsuchiya, and A. Anis Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values J Health Econ 31 2012 306 318
41. E.A. Stolk, M. Oppe, L. Scalone, and P.F. Krabbe Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D Value Health 13 2010 1005 1013
42. R. Norman, P. Cronin, and R. Viney A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11 2013 287 298
43. R. Norman, R. Viney, and J. Brazier et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment Med Decis Making 2013 (Epub ahead of print)
44. R. Viney, R. Norman, and J. Brazier et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states Health Econ 2013 (Epub ahead of print)
45. J.M. Bland, and D.G. Altman Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1 1986 307 310
46. P.E. Shrout, and J.L. Fleiss Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability Psychol Bull 86 1979 420 427
47. K.O. McGraw, and S.P. Wong Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients Psychol Methods 1 1996 30 46
48. P.E. Shrout Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry Stat Methods Med Res 7 1998 301 317
49. D. Cherepanov, M. Palta, and D.G. Fryback Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality-of-life measures used in utility assessment: evidence from the National Health Measurement Study Med Care 48 2010 718 725
50. D.J. Street, and L. Burgess The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods 2007 Wiley Hoboken, NJ
51. W.F. Kuhfeld Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques (MR-2010) 2010 SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC
52. H. Bleichrodt, and M. Johannesson The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence Med Decis Making 17 1997 21 32
53. E. Nord, A.U. Enge, and V. Gundersen QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ 19 2010 596 607