Do chronic disease patients value generic health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease? A case of a multicultural Asian population

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Yin-Bun Cheung³  Hwee-Lin Wee²  Nan Luo¹  Julian Thumboo⁴  Mihir Gandhi³ 

[1] School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore;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

关键词: Valuation;    Utility;    EQ-5D;    Chronic disease;   

Others  :  1133894
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0200-6

 received in 2014-08-09, accepted in 2014-12-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is conflicting evidence as to whether patients with chronic disease value hypothetical health states differently from individuals who have not experienced any long-lasting diseases. Furthermore, most studies regarding this issue have been conducted in western countries, with only one conducted in Asia. We aimed to evaluate possible systematic differences in the valuation of EuroQol Group five dimensions 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) health states by chronic disease patients and a population with no chronic disease in Singapore.

Methods

A face-to-face survey for the valuation of the 42 health states of the EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale (VAS) method was conducted in Singapore. The survey also asked participants to report any chronic diseases they had. Ordinary least-square regression models were employed to assess possible differences in the valuation scores of all health states, severe health states and non-severe health states by individual chronic disease patient groups (diabetes, rheumatism, hypertension, heart diseases and lung diseases) and by a group of participants with no chronic disease. A difference of 4 to 8 points on the 100-point VAS was considered to be of practical significance.

Results

The analysis included 332 participants with at least one chronic disease and 651 participants with no chronic disease. After taking health state descriptors and covariates into account, mean valuation scores of the 42 health states by the heart disease group were higher by 4.6 points (p-value = 0.032) compared to the no chronic disease group. Specifically, the heart disease group valued severe health states 5.4 points higher (p-value = 0.025) than the no chronic disease group. There was no practically significant difference in the mean valuation score of non-severe health states between the heart disease group and the no chronic disease group. No practically significant differences were found in the mean valuation score of all health states, severe health states and non-severe health states between any other chronic disease group and the no chronic disease group.

Conclusions

In Singapore, heart disease patients valued EQ-5D-3L severe health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease. Other chronic disease groups did not value EQ-5D-3L health states differently from the no chronic disease group.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Gandhi et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM: Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010, 13(2):306-309.
• [2]Dolders MG, Zeegers MP, Groot W, Ament A: A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(7):653-664.
• [3]Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD: A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:288-298.
• [4]Wang P, Tai ES, Thumboo J, Vrijhoef HJ, Luo N. Does Diabetes Have an Impact on Health-State Utility? A Study of Asians in Singapore. Patient 2014 [Epub ahead of print]
• [5]Luo N, Wang P, Thumboo J, Lim YW, Vrijhoef HJ: Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics 2014, 32(5):495-507.
• [6]Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, Kind P, Coons SJ: Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care 2005, 43:221-228.
• [7]Krabbe PF, Tromp N, Ruers TJ, van Riel PL: Are patients’ judgments of health status really different from the general population? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011, 9:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Pickard AS, Tawk R, Shaw JW: The effect of chronic conditions on stated preferences for health. Eur J Health Econ 2013, 14(4):697-702.
• [9]Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, Raisch D: The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl 1):S27-S30.
• [10]McTaggart-Cowan H: Elicitation of informed general population health state utility values: a review of the literature. Value Health 2011, 14(8):1153-1157.
• [11]Stamuli E: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? Br Med Bull 2011, 97:197-210.
• [12]Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996, 276:1253-1258.
• [13]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE; 2013 [http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf]
• [14]Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ: Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006, 9(4):213-218.
• [15]Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC: The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996, 276(14):1172-1177.
• [16]World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2014. WHO Press. [Internet] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112738/1/9789240692671_eng.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2014
• [17]Singapore Department of Statistics. Census of Population 2010. Statistical Release 1. Demographic characteristics, education, language and religion. Singapore: Department of Statistics 2011 [Internet]. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census_2010_release1/cop2010sr1.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2014
• [18]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
• [19]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.
• [20]Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N: EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide (EuroQol group monographs, Vol. 2). Springer, The Netherlands; 2007.
• [21]Williams R: A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 2000, 56:645-646.
• [22]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, 14:1523-1532.
• [23]Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Out 2007, 5:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Luo N, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preferencebased health-related quality of life instruments. Med Care 2010, 48:365-371.
• [25]Oksanen T, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, Virtanen M, Klaukka T, Vahtera J: Self-report as an indicator of incident disease. Ann Epidemiol 2010, 20(7):547-554.