A comparison of EuroQol 5-dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 8, Issue , 2016, Pages 267-274

  Mozzi, Adelaide ^a   Meregaglia, Michela ^b   Lazzaro, Carlo ^c   Tornatore, Valentina ^d   Belfiglio, Maurizio ^d   Fattore, Giovanni ^a,b  

^a Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management ^*  (Italy)

^b BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^c Studio di Economia Sanitaria   (Italy)

^d ABBVIE INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Crohn s disease; EQ 5D; Preference weights; Utility values; VAS

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROHN DISEASE; DISEASE SEVERITY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EUROQOL 5 DIMENSION 3 LEVEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; ITALY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84975302928     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11786981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S98226     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Stamuli E. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? Br Med Bull. 2001;97(1):197-210.
2. EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.
3. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
4. Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2013;16(5):814-822.
5. EuroQol Group [webpage on the Internet]. Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective Based on EQ-5D. [Report on the Internet]. 2004:115. [cited September 10, 2015]. Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Books/Measuring_Self-Reported_Population_Health_-_An_International_Perspective_based_on_EQ-5D.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2016.
6. Karlsson JA, Nilsson JA, Neovius M, et al. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-years estimation: comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(12):2163-2166.
7. Galante J, Augustovski F, Colantonio L, et al. Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states’ utility weights for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011;14(5):60-64.
8. Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:71-75.
9. Lohr SL. Sampling: Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Boston: Brooks/Cole; 2010.
10. Benedini V, Caporaso N, Corazza GR, et al. Burden of Crohn’s disease: economic and quality of life aspects in Italy. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:209-218.
11. Soncini M, Triossi O, Leo P, Magni G, RING Study Group. Inflammatory bowel disease and hospital treatment in Italy: the RING multi-centre study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19(1):63-68.
12. Harvey RF, Bradshaw JM. A simple index of Crohn’s-disease activity. Lancet. 1980;315(8167):499-556.
13. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons JS. US valuation of EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203-220.
14. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D Health States. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):7-16.
15. Kendall M. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika. 1938;30(1-2):81-89.
16. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement? Pain. 1994;58(3):387-392.
17. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717-1727.
18. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
19. Huang IC, Willke RJ, Atkinson MJ, Lenderking WR, Frangakis C, Wu AW. US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference? Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1065-1072.
20. Wu YQ, Liu K, Tang X, et al. Empirical research of measuring elderly health utility in the outskirts of Beijing by using European quality of Life 5-dimensions. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2012;44(3):397-402.
21. Lee SW, Niileksela CR. Ecobehavioral Consultation in Schools. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2014.
22. König HH, Ulshöfer A, Gregor M, et al. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;14(11):1205-1215.
23. Jansen SJ, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(4):295-306.
24. McLeod RS, Baxter NN. Quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease after surgery. World J Surg. 1998;22(4):375-381.
25. Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. 1st ed. New York: Harper Perennial; 2004.
26. Balaban DJ, Sagi PC, Goldfarb NI, Nettler S. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being (QWB) instrument among rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison to general population weights. Med Care. 1986;24(11):973-980.
27. Pickard AS, Ray S, Ganguli A, Cella D. Comparison of FACT-and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(2):305-311.
28. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473-483.
29. Hjortswang H, Strom M, Almeida RT, Almer S. Evaluation of the RFIPC, a disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire, in Swedish patients with ulcerative colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32(12):1235-1240.