10 research outputs found
A critical re-evaluation of the regression model specification in the US D1 EQ-5D value function
Background
The EQ-5D is a generic health-related quality of life instrument (five dimensions with three levels, 243 health states), used extensively in cost-utility/cost-effectiveness analyses. EQ-5D health states are assigned values on a scale anchored in perfect health (1) and death (0).
The dominant procedure for defining values for EQ-5D health states involves regression modeling. These regression models have typically included a constant term, interpreted as the utility loss associated with any movement away from perfect health. The authors of the United States EQ-5D valuation study replaced this constant with a variable, D1, which corresponds to the number of impaired dimensions beyond the first. The aim of this study was to illustrate how the use of the D1 variable in place of a constant is problematic.
Methods
We compared the original D1 regression model with a mathematically equivalent model with a constant term. Comparisons included implications for the magnitude and statistical significance of the coefficients, multicollinearity (variance inflation factors, or VIFs), number of calculation steps needed to determine tariff values, and consequences for tariff interpretation.
Results
Using the D1 variable in place of a constant shifted all dummy variable coefficients away from zero by the value of the constant, greatly increased the multicollinearity of the model (maximum VIF of 113.2 vs. 21.2), and increased the mean number of calculation steps required to determine health state values.
Discussion
Using the D1 variable in place of a constant constitutes an unnecessary complication of the model, obscures the fact that at least two of the main effect dummy variables are statistically nonsignificant, and complicates and biases interpretation of the tariff algorithm
General population norms for the EQ-5D-3Â L in Norway: comparison of postal and web surveys
Abstract Background The EQ-5D-3 L instrument is a standardized questionnaire which was developed as a simple, generic measure of health for clinical and economic appraisal. To aid in the interpretation, scores are often compared with a normative group. The objectives of this study were 1) to provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3 L for Norway, and 2) to compare scores from postal and web surveys. Methods We conducted two surveys in samples that were aimed to be representative of the Norwegian general population: 1) a postal survey (nâ=â5000) and 2) a panel study with electronic data collection (nâ=â1936). For scoring the EQ-5D Index, we used the UK tariff. EQ-5D items were compared using multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis and EQ-5D Index and EQ VAS scores using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for age, sex and education. Results In total 1131 (22.6%) responded to the postal survey and 977 (50.5%) to the web survey. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a higher score category on the Pain/Discomfort scale in the web survey was 1.25 (95%CI 1.04 to 1.50, pâ=â0.019) relative to the postal survey. The odds were similar in the other four dimensions. The EQ-5D Index and EQ VAS scores were similar in the postal and web surveys in the various strata according to age, sex and education, except for lower unadjusted and adjusted score for web respondents aged 41â50 years and for those with higher education (âĽ14 years) than postal respondents. Conclusions The distribution of scores for the EQ-5D descriptive system and its derived utility scores were rather similar in a postal survey and a panel web survey. Hence, these values were combined into a norm set for Norway
âWhen I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheelingâ: interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury
Background:
In health economic analyses, health states are typically valued using instruments with few items per dimension. Due to the generic (and often reductionist) nature of such instruments, certain groups of respondents may experience challenges in describing their health state. This study is concerned with generic, preference-based health state instruments that provide information for decisions about the allocation of resources in health care. Unlike physical measurement instruments, preference-based health state instruments provide health state values that are dependent on how respondents interpret the items. This study investigates how individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) interpret mobility-related items contained within six preference-based health state instruments.
Methods:
Secondary analysis of focus group transcripts originally collected in Vancouver, Canada, explored individualsâ perceptions and interpretations of mobility-related items contained within the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), and the 36-item Short Form health survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Ritchie and Spencerâs âFramework Approachâ was used to perform thematic analysis that focused on participantsâ comments concerning the mobility-related items only.
Results:
Fifteen individuals participated in three focus groups (five per focus group). Four themes emerged: wording of mobility (e.g., âgetting aroundâ vs âwalkingâ), reference to aids and appliances, lack of suitable response options, and reframing of items (e.g., replacing âwalkingâ with âwheelingâ). These themes reflected item features that respondents perceived as relevant in enabling them to describe their mobility, and response strategies that respondents could use when faced with inaccessible items.
Conclusion:
Investigating perceptions to mobility-related items within the context of SCI highlights substantial variation in item interpretation across six preference-based health state instruments. Studying respondentsâ interpretations of items can help to understand discrepancies in the health state descriptions and values obtained from different instruments. This line of research warrants closer attention in the health economics and quality of life literature.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult