Using QALYs in telehealth evaluations: a systematic review of methodology and transparency

BMC Health Services Research

Trine S Bergmo¹ 

[1] Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine and Integrated Care, University Hospital of North Norway, N-9038 Tromsø Norway

关键词: Cost-utility analysis;    Quality-adjusted life-years;    Health-related quality of life;    E-Health;    Remote consultations;    Videoconferencing;    Telemedicine;    Telehealth;   

Others  :  1126827
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-332

 received in 2013-05-08, accepted in 2014-07-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a recognised outcome measure in health economic evaluations. QALY incorporates individual preferences and identifies health gains by combining mortality and morbidity into one single index number. A literature review was conducted to examine and discuss the use of QALYs to measure outcomes in telehealth evaluations.

Methods

Evaluations were identified via a literature search in all relevant databases. Only economic evaluations measuring both costs and QALYs using primary patient level data of two or more alternatives were included.

Results

A total of 17 economic evaluations estimating QALYs were identified. All evaluations used validated generic health related-quality of life (HRQoL) instruments to describe health states. They used accepted methods for transforming the quality scores into utility values. The methodology used varied between the evaluations. The evaluations used four different preference measures (EQ-5D, SF-6D, QWB and HUI3), and utility scores were elicited from the general population. Most studies reported the methodology used in calculating QALYs. The evaluations were less transparent in reporting utility weights at different time points and variability around utilities and QALYs. Few made adjustments for differences in baseline utilities. The QALYs gained in the reviewed evaluations varied from 0.001 to 0.118 in implying a small but positive effect of telehealth intervention on patient’s health. The evaluations reported mixed cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion

The use of QALYs in telehealth evaluations has increased over the last few years. Different methodologies and utility measures have been used to calculate QALYs. A more harmonised methodology and utility measure is needed to ensure comparability across telehealth evaluations.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bergmo; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Reardon T: Research findings and strategies for assessing telemedicine costs. Telemed J E Health 2005, 11(3):348-369.
• [2]Mistry H: Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare 2012, 18(1):1-6.
• [3]Bergmo TS: Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009, 7:18.
• [4]Bergmo TS: Economic evaluation in telemedicine - still room for improvement. J Telemed Telecare 2010, 16(5):229-231.
• [5]Sculpher MJ, Price M: Measuring costs and consequences in economic evaluation in asthma. Respir Med 2003, 97(5):508-520.
• [6]Maklin S, Rasanen P, Laitinen R, Kovanen N, Autti-Ramo I, Sintonen H, Roine RP: Quality-adjusted life-years for the estimation of effectiveness of screening programs: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012, 28(2):145-151.
• [7]Whitehurst DG, Bryan S, Lewis M: Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Making 2011, 31(6):E34-E44.
• [8]Soares MO: Is the QALY blind, deaf and dumb to equity? NICE's considerations over equity. Br Med Bull 2012, 101:17-31.
• [9]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [10]Olsen JA: Principles in Health Economics and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
• [11]Palmer S, Torgerson DJ: Economics notes: definitions of efficiency. BMJ: British Med J 1999, 318(7191):1136.
• [12]Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S: Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010, 79(11):736-771.
• [13]Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE: A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:233.
• [14]Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ: The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001, 10(2):179-184.
• [15]EuroQol-Group: EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [16]NICE: Guide to the Method of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
• [17]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):271-292.
• [18]Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004, 42(9):851-859.
• [19]Kaplan RM, Anderson JP: A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988, 23(2):203-235.
• [20]Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R: The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999, 8(3):209-224.
• [21]Sintonen H: The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):328-336.
• [22]Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, Wang Q, Towse A, Drummond MF: Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29(8):673-685.
• [23]Cheung K, Oemar M, Oppe M, Rabin R: EQ-5D user guide: basic information on how to use EQ-5D. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group; 2009.
• [24]Petrou S, Gray A: Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ: British Med J 2011, 342:d1548.
• [25]Barnett TE, Chumbler NR, Vogel WB, Beyth RJ, Ryan P, Figueroa S: The cost-utility of a care coordination/home telehealth programme for veterans with diabetes. J Telemed Telecare 2007, 13(6):318-321.
• [26]Franzen C, Bjornstig U, Brulin C, Lindholm L: A cost-utility analysis of nursing intervention via telephone follow-up for injured road users. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:98.
• [27]Moss-Morris R, McCrone P, Yardley L, van Kessel K, Wills G, Dennison L: A pilot randomised controlled trial of an Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy self-management programme (MS Invigor8) for multiple sclerosis fatigue. Behav Res Ther 2012, 50(6):415-421.
• [28]Blankers M, Nabitz U, Smit F, Koeter MW, Schippers GM: Economic evaluation of internet-based interventions for harmful alcohol use alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Med Int Res 2012, 14(5):e134.
• [29]Willems DC, Joore MA, Hendriks JJ, Wouters EF, Severens JL: Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2007, 5:10.
• [30]Yardley L, Barker F, Muller I, Turner D, Kirby S, Mullee M, Morris A, Little P: Clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness in primary care: single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012, 344:e2237.
• [31]Graves N, Barnett AG, Halton KA, Veerman JL, Winkler E, Owen N, Reeves MM, Marshall A, Eakin E: Cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered intervention for physical activity and diet. PLoS One 2009, 4(9):e7135.
• [32]Graves N, Courtney M, Edwards H, Chang A, Parker A, Finlayson K: Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to reduce emergency re-admissions to hospital among older patients. PLoS One 2009, 4(10):e7455.
• [33]Hebert PL, Sisk JE, Wang JJ, Tuzzio L, Casabianca JM, Chassin MR, Horowitz C, McLaughlin MA: Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led disease management for heart failure in an ethnically diverse urban community. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149(8):540-548.
• [34]Pyne JM, Fortney JC, Tripathi SP, Maciejewski ML, Edlund MJ, Williams DK: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010, 67(8):812-821.
• [35]Smith B, Hughes-Cromwick PF, Forkner E, Galbreath AD: Cost-effectiveness of telephonic disease management in heart failure. Am J Manag Care 2008, 14(2):106-115.
• [36]Dolan P: NICE should value real experiences over hypothetical opinions. Nature 2009, 462(7269):35.
• [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):1121-1132.
• [38]Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, McDonnell J, Krabbe PF, van Busschbach JJ: [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005, 149(28):1574-1578.
• [39]Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006, 26(1):18-29.
• [40]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):271-292.
• [41]Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, Tancredi DJ: Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Med Care 2003, 41(11):1277-1283.
• [42]Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, Falger P, Gijsen BC, Thuring M, Lenssen A, van der Ent F, Verkeyn J, Haekens C, Hupperets P, Nuytinck JK, van Riet Y, Brenninkmeijer SJ, Scheijmans LJ, Kessels A, Lambin P, Boersma LJ: Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer 2011, 47(8):1175-1185.
• [43]Neelemaat F, Bosmans JE, Thijs A, Seidell JC, van der Schueren MA VB-d: Oral nutritional support in malnourished elderly decreases functional limitations with no extra costs. Clin Nutr 2012, 31(2):183-190.
• [44]van Keulen HM, Bosmans JE, van Tulder MW, Severens JL, de Vries H, Brug J, Mesters I: Cost-effectiveness of tailored print communication, telephone motivational interviewing, and a combination of the two: results of an economic evaluation alongside the Vitalum randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010, 7:64.
• [45]van der Meer V, van den Hout WB, Bakker MJ, Rabe KF, Sterk PJ, Assendelft WJ, Kievit J, Sont JK: Cost-effectiveness of Internet-based self-management compared with usual care in asthma. PLoS One 2011, 6(11):e27108.
• [46]van Wier MF, Dekkers JC, Bosmans JE, Heymans MW, Hendriksen IJ, Pronk NP, van Mechelen W, van Tulder MW: Economic evaluation of a weight control program with e-mail and telephone counseling among overweight employees: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:112.
• [47]Handley MA, Shumway M, Schillinger D: Cost-effectiveness of automated telephone self-management support with nurse care management among patients with diabetes. Ann Fam Med 2008, 6(6):512-518.
• [48]Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Anderson DG, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ, Rihn JA: Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J 2012, 12(8):676-690.
• [49]Tarride JE, Burke N, Bischof M, Hopkins RB, Goeree L, Campbell K, Xie F, O'Reilly D, Goeree R: A review of health utilities across conditions common in paediatric and adult populations. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:12.
• [50]Yam CH, Wong EL, Chan FW, Wong FY, Leung MC, Yeoh EK: Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmissions: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med J 2010, 16(5):383-389.
• [51]Wu L, Forbes A, Griffiths P, Milligan P, While A: Telephone follow-up to improve glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Diabet Med 2010, 27(11):1217-1225.
• [52]Sculpher M, Pang F, Manca A, Drummond M, Golder S, Urdahl H, Davies L, Eastwood A: Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(49):1-192.
• [53]Richardson G, Manca A: Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004, 13(12):1203-1210.
• [54]Dolan P: Output Measures and Valuation in Health. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice; 2001:46-67.
• [55]Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ: Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005, 14(5):487-496.
• [56]Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández J-L, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Cartwright M, Rixon L, Beynon M, Rogers A, Bower P: Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ: British Med J 2013, 346:f1035.
• [57]Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Doll H, Bower P, Bardsley M, Steventon A, Knapp M, Henderson C, Rogers A, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Barlow J, Newman SP: Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013, 346:f653.
• [58]Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10(4):407-415.
• [59]Drummond M: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):344-349.
• [60]Kaplan RM: The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD: J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2005, 2(1):91-97.
• [61]Walters SJ, Brazier JE: What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1(1):4.
• [62]Walters SJ, Brazier JE: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005, 14(6):1523-1532.
• [63]Wootton R: Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012, 18(4):211-220.
• [64]Briggs A: Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice edn. Edited by Drummond M, McGuire A. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
• [65]Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K: International survey on willingness‒to‒pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ 2010, 19(4):422-437.
• [66]Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M: Threshold Values for Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE): Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Brussels; 2008.
• [67]Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M: Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011, 27(1):71-76.
• [68]Devlin N, Parkin D: Does NICE have a cost‒effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004, 13(5):437-452.
• [69]Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, Sculpher M, Brazier J: Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J of health services Res & policy 2007, 12(1):56-58.
• [70]Whitehead SJ, Ali S: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010, 96:5-21.
• [71]Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C, Scott A: Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention? Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31(2):163-171.
• [72]Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D: Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1151-1157.
• [73]Wijeysundera HC, Tomlinson G, Norris CM, Ghali WA, Ko DT, Krahn MD: Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle angina questionnaire in coronary artery disease a mapping algorithm using a Bayesian framework. Med Decis Mak 2011, 31(3):481-493.
• [74]Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003, 41(7):791-801.
• [75]Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Jenkinson C, Muir KR: Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009, 7:12.
• [76]Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, Tountas Y, Niakas D: Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res 2009, 18(1):87-97.
• [77]McDonough CM, Tosteson AN: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007, 25(2):93-106.
• [78]Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR: Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med Care 2009, 47(8):889-894.
• [79]Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Fong KY, Thumboo J: Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57(6):1043-1049.
• [80]Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J: SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ 2009, 10(1):15-23.