From simple to even simpler, but not too simple:a head-to-head comparison of the Better-Worse and Drop-Down methods for measuring patient health status

BACKGROUND: We recently developed a novel, preference-based method (Better-Worse, BW) for measuring health status, expressed as a single metric value. We have since expanded it by developing the Drop-Down (DD) method. This article presents a head-to-head comparison of these two methods. We explored user feasibility, interpretability and statistics of the estimated coefficients, and distribution of the computed health-state values.METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among patients with various diseases in the USA. The BW and DD methods were applied in the two arms of the study, albeit in reverse order. In both arms, patients first performed a descriptive task (Task 1) to rate their own health status according to the 12 items (each with 4 levels) in the CS-Base health-outcome instrument. They then performed Task 2, in which they expressed preferences for health states by the two methods. We then estimated coefficients for all levels of each item using logistic regression and used these to compute values for health states.RESULTS: Our total sample comprised 1,972 patients. Completion time was &lt; 2 min for both methods. Both methods were scored as easy to perform. All DD coefficients were highly significant from the reference level (P &lt; 0.001). For BW, however, only the second-level coefficient of "Cognition" was significantly different (P = 0.026). All DD coefficients were more precise with narrower confidence intervals than those of the BW method.CONCLUSIONS: Both the BW and DD are novel methods that are easy to apply. The DD method outperformed the BW method in terms of the precision of produced coefficients. Due to its task, it is free from a specific distorting factor that was observed for the BW method.</p

An overview of the time trade-off method:concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health

INTRODUCTION: Preference-based instruments measuring health status express the value of specific health states in a single number. One method used is time trade-off (TTO). Health-status values are key elements in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and are pertinent for resource allocation. Since they are used in economic evaluations of healthcare, searching for a theoretical foundation of TTO in economics is justified. AREA COVERED: This paper provides an overview of TTO, including its relation to economic theory, and discusses biases and distortions, compiled from recent and older research. Inconsistencies between TTO and random utility theory were detected; The TTO is confounded by time preferences and by respondents' life expectancies. TTO is cognitively challenging, therefore guidance during the interviews is needed, producing interview effects. TTO does not measure one thing at a time, nor are the values independent of other states that are being valued in the same task. That is, TTO does not exhibit theoretical measurement properties such as unidimensionality and the invariance principle. EXPERT OPINION: We conclude that the TTO may be a pragmatic method of eliciting health state values, but the limitations in regard to measurement theory and practical elicitation problems makes it prone to inconsistencies and arbitrariness

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Health Values

The EQ-5D is a widely used preference-based instrument to measure health-related quality of life. Some methodological drawbacks of its three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) prompted development of a new format (EQ-5D-5L). There is no clear evidence that the new format outperforms the standard version.The objective of this study was to make a head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in a discrete choice model setting giving special attention to the consistency and logical ordering of coefficients for the attribute levels and to the differences in health-state values.Using efficient designs, 240 pairs of EQ-5D-3L health states and 240 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were generated in a pairwise choice format. The study included 3698 Dutch general population respondents, analyzed their responses using a conditional logit model, and compared the values elicited by EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L for different health states.No inconsistencies or illogical ordering of level coefficients were observed in either version. The proportion of severe health states with low values was higher in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L, and the proportion of mild/moderate states was lower in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L. Moreover, differences were observed in the relative weights of the attributes.Overall distribution of health-state values derived from a large representative sample using the same measurement framework for both versions showed differences between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. However, even small differences in the phrasing (language) of the descriptive system or in the valuation protocol can produce differences in values between these two versions.</p

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Attitudes of Dutch general practitioners towards vaccinating the elderly:less is more?

Background: In many European countries, vaccinations are offered to the elderly. Expanding the programme to include routine vaccination against pneumococcal disease, herpes zoster, and pertussis, for example, could reduce disease burden amongst the growing population of persons aged 50 years and older. Since most countries involve general practitioners (GPs) in the programmes, the potential success of such new vaccinations depends on the attitude of GPs towards these vaccinations. This qualitative study explores Dutch GPs' attitudes regarding vaccination in general, and their attitudes regarding the incorporation of additional vaccines in the current Dutch influenza vaccination programme. Methods: Interviews were held with ten Dutch GPs (five men and five women) that worked either in an academic hospital, in a practice based in a health center, or in individual practice. All interviews were recorded with a digital voice recorder and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed according to thematic analysis. Results: GPs perceived prevention as part as their job and believed vaccination to be effective for preventing infectious diseases. However, influenza vaccination was not always perceived as effective. Doubts regarding the usefulness of additional vaccinations were identified. If additional vaccines would be offered, this should be based on scientific evidence and the severity of the infectious disease. Selection of patients for vaccination should not be based solely on age, but more on risk factors. The GP should be the central point of contact for new vaccination campaigns; however, high workload was seen as a concern. Several GPs questioned their ability to refuse to distribute the vaccinations. Conclusions: A positive attitude towards implementing additional vaccinations is not apparent. Achieving the most health benefits seems to be the most important consideration of Dutch GPs regarding vaccinating older adults. Questions regarding the usefulness of vaccinating older adults should be taken into consideration. More research is necessary to confirm the results among a wider range of Dutch GPs

Eye tracking to explore attendance in health-state descriptions

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>A crucial assumption in health valuation methods is that respondents pay equal attention to all information components presented in the response task. So far, there is no solid evidence that respondents are fulfilling this condition. The aim of our study is to explore the attendance to various information cues presented in the discrete choice (DC) response tasks.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Eye tracking was used to study the eye movements and fixations on specific information areas. This was done for seven DC response tasks comprising health-state descriptions. A sample of 10 respondents participated in the study. Videos of their eye movements were recorded and are presented graphically. Frequencies were computed for length of fixation and number of fixations, so differences in attendance were demonstrated for particular attributes in the tasks.</p><p>Results</p><p>All respondents completed the survey. Respondents were fixating on the left-sided health-state descriptions slightly longer than on the right-sided. Fatigue was not observed, as the time spent did not decrease in the final response tasks. The time spent on the tasks depended on the difficulty of the task and the amount of information presented.</p><p>Discussion and conclusion</p><p>Eye tracking proved to be a feasible method to study the process of paying attention and fixating on health-state descriptions in the DC response tasks. Eye tracking facilitates the investigation of whether respondents fully read the information in health descriptions or whether they ignore particular elements.</p></div

Patients First:Toward a Patient-Centered Instrument to Measure Impact of Chronic Pain

Background. Numerous instruments are available to measure the impact of chronic pain, yet most have been developed with little or no patient involvement. This study seeks to start bridging that gap by determining which health aspects or attributes (to be included in a future instrument) are considered most important by people with chronic pain. Objective. The goal of this study was to reveal which attributes reflecting impact of chronic pain are considered most important by people with chronic pain and to analyze differences in importance according to gender, age categories, diagnostic subgroups, and pain intensity categories. Design. This study used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design: literature search, focus group meetings, and online survey. Methods. First, a literature search was performed to identify the attributes in existing instruments. In 68 instruments meeting inclusion criteria, 155 unique attributes were identified, 85 of which remained after applying the exclusion criteria. Second, 2 focus group meetings, with 6 and 4 patients, respectively, were held to verify that no attributes had been missed. Three attributes were subsequently added. Third, individuals with chronic pain were then sent an online survey through several patient organizations. Results. A total of 939 patients were asked to select the 8 attributes they deemed most important, which resulted in the following list: fatigue, social life, cramped muscles, sleeping, housekeeping, concentration, not being understood, and control over pain. The importance assigned to these 8 attributes varied slightly according to age, gender, and diagnostic subgroup. Limitations. Participation rate could not be established because of the online survey. Conclusions. Attributes reflecting impact of chronic pain deemed most important by patients are revealed. Importance of impact differs according to subgroups. The "patients-first" methodology used here revealed attributes that were not comprehensively covered in currently available instruments for measuring the impact of chronic pain