Study protocol for valuing EQ-5D-3L and EORTC-8D health states in a representative population sample in Sri Lanka

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Paul A Scuffham¹  Newell W Johnson¹  Jennifer A Whitty¹  Sanjeewa Kularatna¹ 

[1] Population and Social Health Research Programme, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

关键词: QALY;    Time trade-off;    EORTC-8D;    EQ-5D;    Health state valuation;    Utilities;    Low and middle income countries;   

Others  :  823254
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-149

 received in 2013-06-14, accepted in 2013-08-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Economic evaluations to inform decisions about allocation of health resources are scarce in Low and Middle Income Countries, including in Sri Lanka. This is in part due to a lack of country-specific utility weights, which are necessary to derive appropriate Quality Adjusted Life Years. The EQ-5D-3L, a generic multi-attribute instrument (MAUI), is most widely used to measure and value health states in high income countries; nevertheless, the sensitivity of generic MAUIs has been criticised in some conditions such as cancer. This article describes a protocol to produce both a generic EQ-5D-3L and cancer specific EORTC-8D utility index in Sri Lanka.

Method

EQ-5D-3L and EORTC-8D health states will be valued using the Time Trade-Off technique, by a representative population sample (n = 780 invited) identified using stratified multi-stage cluster sampling with probability proportionate to size method. Households will be randomly selected within 30 clusters across four districts; one adult (≥18 years) within each household will be selected using the Kish grid method.

Data will be collected via face-to-face interview, with a Time Trade-Off board employed as a visual aid. Of the 243 EQ-5D-3L and 81,290 EORTC-8D health states, 196 and 84 respectively will be directly valued. In EQ-5D-3L, all health states that combine level 3 on mobility with either level 1 on usual activities or self-care were excluded. Each participant will first complete the EQ-5D-3L, rank and value 14 EQ-5D-3L states (plus the worst health state and “immediate death”), and then rank and value seven EORTC-8D states (plus “immediate death”). Participant demographic and health characteristics will be also collected.

Regression models will be fitted to estimate utility indices for EQ-5D-3L and EORTC-8D health states for Sri Lanka. The dependent variable will be the utility value. Different specifications of independent variables will be derived from the ordinal EQ-5D-3L to test for the best-fitting model.

Discussion

In Sri Lanka, a LMIC health state valuation will have to be carried out using face to face interview instead of online methods. The proposed study will provide the first country-specific health state valuations for Sri Lanka, and one of the first valuations to be completed in a South Asian Country.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kularatna et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Drummond MF: Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. Oxfrord: Oxfrord Medical Publications; 1999.
• [2]NICE: Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors onmaking a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2001.
• [3]Ministry of Health: Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ministry of Health; 1994.
• [4]Commitee PBA: Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Ageing; 2008.
• [5]The EuroQol Group: EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16(3):199-208. Epub 1990/11/05
• [6]Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R: A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11(3):287-298. Epub 2013/05/08
• [7]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. Epub 2002/04/10
• [8]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):702-722.
• [9]AQoL: Assessment of quality of life. 2011. [cited 2011 15.10.2011]; Available from: http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolinstruments webcite
• [10]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):306-318.
• [11]WorldBankaccessed August 2012. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups webcite
• [12]World Health Organization: World health statistics. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2011.
• [13]Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J: International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1194-1200. Epub 2009/08/22
• [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. Epub 2001/02/24
• [15]Kularatna S, Whitty JA, Johnson NW, Scuffham PA: Health state valuation in low and middle income countries: a systematic review of the literature. Value Health 2013. In press
• [16]Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al.: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380(9859):2197-2223. Epub 2012/12/19
• [17]Bailey H, Kind P: Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(8):1145-1154.
• [18]Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig BM, King MT, et al.: Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 2011, 14(5):721-731. Epub 2011/08/16
• [19]Ministry of Health: Annual health statistics. Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2007.
• [20]Viney R, Norman R, King MT, Cronin P, Street DJ, Knox S, et al.: Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health 2011, 14(6):928-936. Epub 2011/09/15
• [21]Buxton MJ: Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24(11):1133-1142. Epub 2006/10/28
• [22]Cleemput I: A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders Belgium. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11(2):205-213. Epub 2009/07/08
• [23]Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, William A: Valuing health states: a comparison of methods, HESG Conference, Strathclyde. 1993.
• [24]Torrance GW: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40(6):593-603.
• [25]Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al.: An Australian discrete choice experiment to value Eq-5d health states. Health Econ 2013. Epub 2013/06/15
• [26]Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6(2):124-130. Epub 2005/06/01
• [27]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):203-220.
• [28]Tsuchiya A, et al.: Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002, 11(4):341-353.
• [29]Augustovski FA, Irazola VE, Velazquez AP, Gibbons L, Craig BM: Argentine valuation of the EQ-5D health states. Value Health 2009, 12(4):587-596.
• [30]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):1135-1141.
• [31]Tongsiri S, Cairns J: Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health 2011, 14(8):1142-1145.
• [32]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. Epub 2003/12/18 BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Arnesen T, Trommald M: Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?–a systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005, 14(1):39-53.
• [34]Augestad LA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Kristiansen IS, Stavem K: Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states. Value Health 2012, 15(2):340-345.
• [35]Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K: Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making 2010, 30(5):610-619. Epub 2010/01/14
• [36]Norman R, King MT, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, Street D: Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(4):499-508. Epub 2010/02/23
• [37]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):1622-1634. Epub 2010/03/09
• [38]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):238-244.
• [39]Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A: The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996, 5(2):141-154. Epub 1996/03/01
• [40]Gudex C: Time trade off user manual:props and self completion methods. York: The University of York; 1994.
• [41]Gudex C, Dolan PH, Kind P, Thomas R, Williams AH: Valuing health states. Eur J Public Health 1997, 7(4):441-448.
• [42]Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:70. Epub 2007/12/25 BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S: Sample size determination in health studies. A practical manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991.
• [44]Scheaffer R: Elemantary survey sampling. Boston: PWS-KENT; 1979.
• [45]Bennett S, Woods T, Liyanage WM, Smith DL: A simplified general method for cluster-sample surveys of health in developing countries. World Health Stat Q 1991, 44(3):98-106.
• [46]Perera IR, Usgodaarachchi US: Development of a psychometric scale to assess satisfaction with dental care among Sri Lankans. Community Dent Health 2009, 26(3):150-156. Epub 2009/09/29
• [47]Kish L: A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. J Am Stat Assoc 1949, 44(247):380-387.
• [48]Jayasekara H, Rajapaksa L, Bredart A: Psychometric evaluation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire ('Sinhala' version) for use in a South-Asian setting. Int J Qual Health Care 2008, 20(3):221-226. Epub 2008/03/15
• [49]Dolan PD: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
• [50]Akaike H: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1974, 19(6):716-723.
• [51]Schwarz G: Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978, 6(2):461-464.
• [52]Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, Gaugris S: Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health 2012, 15(8):1059-1068. Epub 2012/12/19