How is the most severe health state being valued by the general population?

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Yin-Bun Cheung²  Nan Luo⁴  Hwee-Lin Wee¹  Julian Thumboo³  Mihir Gandhi² 

[1] Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore;Department of International Health, School of Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland;Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore;Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

关键词: Worse than dead;    Visual analogue scale;    Utility;    SF-6D;    EQ-5D;   

Others  :  1164506
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0161-9

 received in 2014-02-06, accepted in 2014-10-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

It has been reported that valuation of health states that are close to death, such as the most severe health state, can be affected by health state valuation procedure, and their utility values are difficult to predict. We examined how the most severe health states of Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) and EuroQoL-5 dimension-3 level (EQ-5D-3L) were valued by the Singapore general population.

Methods

Overall, 249 SF-6D and 42 EQ-5D-3L states were valued by two separate samples from the Singapore general population using the visual analogue scale (VAS) method. Ordinary least-square regression model was employed to explain deficit in the valuation of the most severe state using the health state descriptors.

Results

A total of 1021 participants from the SF-6D sample and 1015 participants from the EQ-5D-3L sample were included in the analysis. We observed that 67% of the SF-6D participants and 74% of the EQ-5D-3L participants considered the most severe state worse than dead. The most severe state had mean VAS valuation scores more than 20¿25 points lower than the adjacent states that are better by only one level in only one dimension. SF-6D VAS valuation score for the most severe state was 27 points and 12 points lower than expected according to the health state descriptors among the participants who considered the most severe state worse than dead and better than dead, respectively. Similar results were found for the EQ-5D-3L valuation.

Conclusions

The most severe health state was valued lower than expected according to its descriptors.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gandhi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]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):119-200.
• [2]Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 17:151-165.
• [3]Lamers L: 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.
• [4]Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N: EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide (EuroQol group monographs, Vol. 2). Springer; 2007.
• [5]Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, Miksad RA, Prosser LA: Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27(9):713-723.
• [6]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.
• [7]Raat H, Bonsel GJ, Hoogeveen WC, Essink-Bot ML: Feasibility and reliability of a mailed questionnaire to obtain visual analogue scale valuations for health states defined by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Med Care 2004, 42(1):13-18.
• [8]Luo N, Wang Q, Feeny D, Chen G, Li SC, Thumboo J: Measuring health preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 health states: a study of feasibility and preference differences among ethnic groups in Singapore. Med Decis Making 2007, 27(1):61-70.
• [9]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.
• [10]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):1032-1045.
• [11]Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, Barkham M, Ibbotson R: 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 2012, 16(32):1-114.
• [12]Wee HL, Li SC, Xie F, Zhang XH, Luo N, Cheung YB, Machin D, Fong KY, Thumboo J: Are Asians comfortable with discussing death in health valuation studies? A study in multi-ethnic Singapore. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:93. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
• [14]Williams R: A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 2000, 56:645-646.
• [15]Walters S, Brazier J: 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, 11:1-4.
• [16]Wee H, Machin D, Loke W, Li S, Cheung Y, Luo N, Feeny D, Fong K, Thumboo J: Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health 2007, 10(4):256-265.
• [17]Luo N, Johnson J, Coons S: Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. Med Care 2010, 48(4):365-371.
• [18]Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Ibbotson R: It¿s all in the name, or is it? The impact of labeling on health state values. Med Decis Making 2012, 32(1):31-40.
• [19]Robinson S, Bryan S: `Naming and framing¿: an investigation of the effect of disease labels on health state valuations. Health Economics Study Group Meeting, University of Oxford, Oxford; 2001.
• [20]Rabin R, Rosser RM, Butler C: Impact of diagnosis on utilities assigned to states of illness. J R Soc Med 1993, 86:444-448.
• [21]Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W: Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001, 21(4):329-334.
• [22]Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004, 13(9):873-884.