Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies: A Systematic Review

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 798-810

  Engel, Lidia ^a,b   Bansback, Nick ^b,c,d   Bryan, Stirling ^b,c   Doyle Waters, Mary M ^b   Whitehurst, David G T ^a,b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

exclusion criteria; health state valuation; preference based measures; quality adjusted life year

Indexed keywords

DATA EXTRACTION; ENGLISH (LANGUAGE); HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLICATION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; QUALITY OF LIFE;

HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 84986000620     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15595365     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Rabin R, de Charro F., EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33 (5): 337-43.
2. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002; 21 (2): 271-92.
3. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002; 40 (2): 113-28.
4. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC., Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000; 21: 587-611.
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Available from: URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf
6. Dolan P., Whose preferences count? Med Decis Making. 1999; 19 (4): 482-6.
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available from: URL http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf
8. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M., Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17 (2): 151-65.
9. Dolan P, Kind P., Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med. 1996; 42 (4): 609-15.
10. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E., Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2013; 34 (1): 8-20.
11. MVH Group. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Report on the Modelling of Valuation Tariffs. York (UK): Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.
12. Augustovski FA, Irazola VE, Velazquez AP, Gibbons L, Craig BM., Argentine valuation of the EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2009; 12 (4): 587-96.
13. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K., Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51 (11): 1115-28.
14. Chang TJ, Tarn YH., Selecting a proper EQ-5D value set model for Taiwan population. In: Stavem K, ed. 22nd Plenary Meeting of the Euroqol Group. Oslo (Norway): Akershus University Hospital; 2005. p 1-14.
15. Claes C, Greiner W, Uber A, Graf von der Schulenburg JM., An interview-based comparison of the TTO and VAS values given to EuroQol states of health by the general German population. In: Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, eds. 15th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Hannover (Germany): Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research; 1998. p 13-38.
16. Yusof FA, Goh A, Azmi S., Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Value Health. 2012; 15 (1 Suppl): S85-90.
17. Aletras VH, Kontodimopoulos N, Niakas DA, et al. Valuation and preliminary validation of the Greek 15D in a sample of patients with coronary artery disease. Value Health. 2009; 12 (4): 574-9.
18. 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.
19. Badia X, Roset M, Monserrat S, Herdman M., The Spanish VAS tariff based on valuations of EQ-5D health states from the general population. 14th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Rotterdam (The Netherlands): 1997.
20. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A., Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012; 31 (1): 306-18.
21. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A., Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (2): e31115.
22. Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62 (12): 1323-31.
23. Brazier JE, Roberts J., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004; 42 (9): 851-9.
24. Chevalier J, de Pouvourville G., Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14 (1): 57-66.
25. Cleemput I., A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. Eur J Health Econ. 2010; 11 (2): 205-13.
26. Cruz LN, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians. Value Health. 2011; 14 (5 Suppl 1): S108-14.
27. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams A., Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations-a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Econ. 2003; 12 (7): 529-44.
28. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Brazier J, Rowen D., A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010; 13 (5): 624-30.
29. Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Niewada M, Wrona W, Busschbach JJ., Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: first TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health. 2010; 13 (2): 289-97.
30. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states: results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ. 2003; 4 (3): 222-31.
31. Hector RD Sr, Anderson JP, Paul RC, Weiss RE, Hays RD, Kaplan RM., Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19 (5): 729-38.
32. Ikeda S, Sakai I, Tamura M., VAS valuations of hypothetical health states using EQ-5D in Japan. In: Cabasés JM, Gaminde I, eds. 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Pamplona (Spain): Universidad Pública de Navarra; 2000. p 47-59.
33. Jelsma J, Hansen K, De Weerdt W, De Cock P, Kind P., How do Zimbabweans value health states? Popul Health Metr. 2003; 1 (1): 11.
34. Jo MW, Yun SC, Lee SI., Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with the time trade-off method in South Korea. Value Health. 2008; 11 (7): 1186-9.
35. Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G., Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998; 13 (4): 421-33.
36. Lam CL, Brazier J, McGhee SM., Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health. 2008; 11 (2): 295-303.
37. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ., The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006; 15 (10): 1121-32.
38. Lee HY, Hung MC, Hu FC, Chang YY, Hsieh CL, Wang JD., Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 dimensions) health states with the time trade-off method in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013; 112 (11): 699-706.
39. Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009; 12 (8): 1187-93.
40. Macran S, Kind P., EQ-5D valuations from a British national postal survey. In: Cabases JM, Gaminde I, eds. 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Pamplona (Spain): Universidad Pública de Navarra; 2000. p 87-102.
41. McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, Brazier J., Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ. 2005; 14 (3): 231-44.
42. McCabe CJ, Stevens KJ, Brazier JE., Utility scores for the Health Utilities Index Mark 2: an empirical assessment of alternative mapping functions. Med Care. 2005; 43 (6): 627-35.
43. McGhee SM, Brazier J, Lam CL, et al. Quality-adjusted life years: population-specific measurement of the quality component. Hong Kong Med J. 2011; 17 (Suppl 6): 17-21.
44. Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, Iezzi A, Sinha K., Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health. 2010; 13 (8): 1014-27.
45. Ohinmaa A, Eija H, Sintonen H., Modelling EuroQol values of the Finnish adult population. In: 12th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Barcelona (Spain): Institut de Salut Pública de Catalunya; 1995. p 67-76.
46. Prevolnik-Rupel V, Rebolj M., The Slovenian VAS tariff based on valuations of EQ-5D health states from the general population. In: Cabasés JM, Gaminde I, eds. 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Pamplona (Spain): Universidad Pública de Navarra; 2001. p 23-47.
47. Ramos-Goni JM, Rivero-Arias O, Errea M, Stolk EA, Herdman M, Cabases JM., Dealing with the health state "dead" when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14 (Suppl 1): S33-42.
48. Richardson J, Day N, Peacock S, Iezzi A., Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) mark 2 instrument. Aust Econ Rev. 2004; 37: 62-88.
49. Richardson J, Hawthorne G, Day N, Osborne R, McNeil H., Difficulty with Life and Death: Methodological Issues and Results from the Utility Scaling of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1998.
50. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Peacock S, et al. Utility weights for the vision-related Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-7D instrument. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2012; 19 (3): 172-82.
51. Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, Khan MA., Modelling the Utility of Health States with the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D Instrument: Overview and Utility Scoring Algorithm. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2011.
52. Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2013; 16 (5): 814-22.
53. Seiber WJ, Groessl EJ, David KM, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM., Quality of Well Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) scale: user's manual. 2008. Available from: URL: https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf
54. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ., US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005; 43 (3): 203-20.
55. Sintonen H., The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001; 33 (5): 328-36.
56. Tongsiri S, Cairns J., Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011; 14 (8): 1142-5.
57. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q., Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996; 34 (7): 702-22.
58. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002; 11 (4): 341-53.
59. Viney R, Norman R, King MT, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011; 14 (6): 928-36.
60. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Brooks R, Pedersen KM., Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using the time and trade off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) methods. In: Norinder A, Pedersen KM, Roos P, eds. 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Copenhagen (Denmark): The Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 2001. p 257-92.
61. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM., Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health. 2009; 37 (5): 459-66.
62. Zarate V, Kind P, Valenzuela P, Vignau A, Olivares-Tirado P, Munoz A., Social valuation of EQ-5D health states: the Chilean case. Value Health. 2011; 14 (8): 1135-41.
63. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ., Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states. J Health Econ. 2011; 30 (5): 1057-63.
64. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ., Toward a more universal approach in health valuation. Health Econ. 2011; 20 (7): 864-75.
65. Dolan P., Aggregating health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997; 2 (3): 160-5.
66. Dolan P, Roberts J., To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med. 2002; 54 (6): 919-29.
67. Dolan P, Roberts J., Modelling valuations for Eq-5d health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care. 2002; 40 (5): 442-6.
68. Kharroubi S, Brazier JE, O'Hagan A., Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64 (6): 1242-52.
69. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, McGhee S., Modeling SF-6D Hong Kong standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Value Health. 2013; 16 (6): 1032-45.
70. Kharroubi SA, McCabe C., Modeling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28 (6): 875-87.
71. Kharroubi SA, O'Hagan A, Brazier JE., A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Stat Med. 2010; 29 (15): 1622-34.
72. Kind P., Valuing health benefits using EQ-5D: the West Lothian question. 22nd Plenary Meeting of the Euroqol Group. Oslo (Norway): Akershus University Hospital; 2005.
73. Lamers LM., The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007; 45 (3): 238-44.
74. Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ., Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26 (2): 173-81.
75. Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H., Inconsistencies and modelling of the Finnish EuroQol (EQ-5D) preference values. In: Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, eds. 15th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Hannover (Germany): Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research; 1998. p 57-74.
76. Rand-Hendriksen K, Augestad LA, Dahl FA., A critical re-evaluation of the regression model specification in the US D1 EQ-5D value function. Popul Health Metr. 2012; 10 (1): 2.
77. Shaw JW, Pickard AS, Yu S, et al. A median model for predicting United States population-based EQ-5D health state preferences. Value Health. 2010; 13 (2): 278-88.
78. Zarate V, Kind P, Chuang LH., Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: a social value set for Latin Americans. Value Health. 2008; 11 (7): 1170-7.
79. Kind P., A Revised Protocol for the Valuation of Health States Defined by the EQ-5D-3L Classification-Learning the Lessons from the MVH Study. York (UK): Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2009.
80. Cleemput I, Kind P, Kesteloot K., Re-scaling social preference data: implications for modelling. Eur J Health Econ. 2004; 5 (4): 290-8.
81. Craig BM, Ramachandran S., Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006; 15 (8): 835-48.
82. Wittenberg E, Prosser LA., Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: a framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011; 9 (4): 225-41.
83. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Selai C., Understanding health state valuations: a qualitative analysis of respondents' comments. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13 (7): 1265-77.
84. Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2013; 34 (6): 773-86.
85. Lancsar E, Louviere J., Deleting "irrational" responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006; 15 (8): 797-811.