Good Days and Bad Days:Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in People With Epilepsy

Objectives: Cost-effectiveness analyses typically require measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to estimate quality-adjusted life-years. Challenges with measuring HRQoL arise in the context of episodic conditions if patients are less likely—or even unable—to complete surveys when having disease symptoms. This article explored whether HRQoL measured at regular time intervals adequately reflects the HRQoL of people with epilepsy (PWE). Methods: Follow-up data from the Epilepsy Support Dog Evaluation study on the (cost-)effectiveness of seizure dogs were used in which HRQoL is measured in 25 PWE with the EQ-5D at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. Seizure count is recorded daily using a seizure diary. Regression models were employed to explore whether PWE were more likely to complete the HRQoL survey on a good day (ie, when seizures are absent or low in frequency compared with other days) and to provide an estimate of the impact of reporting HRQoL on a good day on EQ-5D utility scores. Results: A total of 111 HRQoL measurements were included in the analyses. Regression analyses indicated that the day of reporting HRQoL was associated with a lower seizure count (P&lt;.05) and that a lower seizure count was associated with a higher EQ-5D utility score (P&lt;.05). Conclusions: When HRQoL is measured at regular time intervals, PWE seem more likely to complete these surveys on good days. Consequently, HRQoL might be overestimated in this population. This could lead to underestimation of the effectiveness of treatment and to biased estimates of cost-effectiveness.</p

The monetary value of informal care: obtaining pure time valuations using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Background Interventions in health care often not only have an efect on patients, but also on their informal caregivers. Caregiving can have a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of carers. Ignoring these spillovers in economic evaluations risks labelling interventions mistakenly as cost-efective, at the expense of informal caregivers. Objective This paper investigates willingness-to-accept (WTA) values for an hour of informal care, corrected for positive and negative impacts of informal care, to facilitate the inclusion of informal care hours on the cost side of economic evaluations without double-counting spillover efects. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n=552) in September 2011. An experimental design minimizing the D-error was used to construct choice sets with two unlabelled alternatives with the attributes ‘hours caregiving’, ‘monetary compensation for caregiving’ and seven impacts of caregiving. To operationalize the random utility model, we used a panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) parameter model. For calculation of WTA, we used both population-level parameters and individual-level parameters. Results The mean WTA for an additional hour of informal care, corrected for positive and negative impacts of informal care, was €14.57. The signs of the coefcients were all in the expected directions. Conclusions This study reports a preference-based monetary value for informal care, corrected for other impacts. This valuation facilitates the inclusion of informal care hours on the cost side in economic evaluations without double-counting any spillover efects included on the efects side

Did the COVID-19 pandemic change the willingness to pay for an early warning system for infectious diseases in Europe?

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for effective infectious disease outbreak prevention. This could entail installing an integrated, international early warning system, aiming to contain and mitigate infectious diseases outbreaks. The amount of resources governments should spend on such preventive measures can be informed by the value citizens attach to such a system. This was already recognized in 2018, when a contingent valuation willingness to pay (WTP) experiment was fielded, eliciting the WTP for such a system in six European countries. We replicated that experiment in the spring of 2020 to test whether and how WTP had changed during an actual pandemic (COVID-19), taking into account differences in infection rates and stringency of measures by government between countries. Overall, we found significant increases in WTP between the two time points, with mean WTP for an early warning system increasing by about 50% (median 30%), from around €20 to €30 per month. However, there were marked differences between countries and subpopulations, and changes were only partially explained by COVID-19 burden. We discuss possible explanations for and implication of our findings.</p