Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Open Access 28-09-2024 | Original Paper

Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases

Authors: Ákos Szabó, Valentin Brodszky, Fanni Rencz

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

Objectives

We aim to compare the measurement properties of three indirect (EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D) and one direct (time trade-off, TTO) utility assessment methods in patients with chronic skin diseases.

Methods

120 patients with physician-diagnosed chronic skin diseases (psoriasis 39%, atopic dermatitis 27%, acne 19%) completed a cross-sectional survey. Respondents completed the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and SF-36v1 questionnaires and a 10-year TTO task for own current health. Utilities were computed using the US value sets. Ceiling, convergent and known-group validity were compared across the utilities derived with these four methods. Known-groups were defined based on general, physical and mental health. The agreement between utilities was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

Mean utilities for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO were 0.79, 0.47, 0.76 and 0.89. In corresponding order, the ceiling was 28%, 0%, 2% and 65%. The SF-6D showed excellent agreement with the EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.770). PROPr demonstrated poor agreement with the EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.381) and fair with SF-6D utilities (ICC = 0.445). TTO utilities showed poor agreement with indirectly assessed utilities (ICC = 0.058–0.242). The EQ-5D-5L better discriminated between known groups of general and physical health, while the SF-6D and PROPr outperformed the EQ-5D-5L for mental health problems.

Conclusion

There is a great variability in utilities across the four methods in patients with chronic skin conditions. The EQ-5D-5L, despite its higher ceiling, appears to be the most efficient in discriminating between patient groups for physical health aspects. Our findings inform the choice of instrument for quality-adjusted life year calculations in cost-utility analyses.

Available only for authorised users

Ali, F., Vyas, J., Finlay, A.Y.: Counting the Burden: Atopic dermatitis and health-related quality of life. Acta dermato-venereologica. 100(12), adv00161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-3511CrossRefPubMed

Eichenfield, D.Z., Sprague, J., Eichenfield, L.F.: Management of Acne Vulgaris: A review. Jama. 326(20), 2055–2067 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.17633CrossRefPubMed

Langley, R.G., Krueger, G.G., Griffiths, C.E.: Psoriasis: Epidemiology, clinical features, and quality of life. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 64(Suppl 2), ii18–23 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.033217CrossRefPubMed

Seth, D., Cheldize, K., Brown, D., Freeman, E.F.: Global burden of skin disease: Inequities and innovations. Curr. Dermatology Rep. 6(3), 204–210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-017-0192-7CrossRef

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017: Lancet (London England). 392(10159), 1789–1858 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32279-7

Kromer, C., Sonntag, C.D., Peitsch, D.: Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations. PloS One. 13(1), e0189765 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189765CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., Tsuchiya, A.: Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press (2017)

Kaplan, R.M., Hays, R.D.: Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement in Public Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 43, 355–373 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052120-012811CrossRefPubMed

Torrance, G.W.: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J. Chronic Dis. 40(6), 593–603 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1CrossRefPubMed

10.

Attema, A.E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M.M., Stolk, E.A.: Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. Eur. J. Health Eco. 14(Suppl 1), S53–64 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0508-xCrossRef

11.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A.: Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual. Life Res. 24(8), 2045–2053 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6CrossRef

12.

Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., van Hout, B.: International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 35(Suppl 1), 11–19 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-yCrossRefPubMed

13.

Brazier, J., Ara, R., Rowen, D., Chevrou-Severac, H.: A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics. 35(Suppl 1), 21–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0545-xCrossRefPubMed

14.

Heinz, K.C., Beaudart, C., Willems, D., Wiethoff, I., Hiligsmann, M.: Cost-effectiveness of emerging treatments for atopic dermatitis. Syst. Rev. PharmacoEconomics. 41(11), 1415–1435 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01293-4CrossRef

15.

Igarashi, A., Yuasa, A., Yonemoto, N., et al.: A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations and cost studies of the Treatment of Psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and chronic Urticaria. Dermatology Therapy. 12(8), 1729–1751 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-022-00774-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lieke, C.J., Nicole, W.J.K.-S., Andrea, P., Klara, M., Brigitte, A.B.E.: A systematic review of economic evaluations for the interventions of superficial basal cell carcinoma. EJC Skin. Cancer. 1, 100008 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcskn.2023.100008CrossRef

17.

Chen, S.C., Bayoumi, A.M., Soon, S.L., et al.: A catalog of dermatology utilities: A measure of the burden of skin diseases. J. Invest. Dermatology Symp. Proc. 9(2), 160–168 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1087-0024.2003.09112.xCrossRef

18.

Yang, Y., Brazier, J., Longworth, L.: EQ-5D in skin conditions: An assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur. J. Health Economics. 16(9), 927–939 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0638-9CrossRef

19.

Ruzsa, G., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V.: Assessment of health state utilities in dermatology: An experimental time trade-off value set for the dermatology life quality index. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 20(1), 87 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01995-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Blome, C., Beikert, F.C., Rustenbach, S.J., Augustin, M.: Mapping DLQI on EQ-5D in psoriasis: Transformation of skin-specific health-related quality of life into utilities. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 305(3), 197–204 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-012-1309-2CrossRefPubMed

21.

Davison, N.J., Thompson, A.J., Turner, A.J., et al.: Generating EQ-5D-3L utility scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index: A mapping study in patients with psoriasis. Value Health. 21(8), 1010–1018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.024CrossRef

22.

Herédi, E., Rencz, F., Balogh, O., et al.: Exploring the relationship between EQ-5D, DLQI and PASI, and mapping EQ-5D utilities: A cross-sectional study in psoriasis from Hungary. Eur J Health Econ. 15(Suppl 1), S111–S119 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0600-xCrossRef

23.

Vilsbøll, A.W., Kragh, N., Hahn-Pedersen, J., Jensen, C.E.: Mapping Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores to EQ-5D utility scores using data of patients with atopic dermatitis from the National Health and Wellness Study. Quality of Life Research. 29(9), 2529–2539 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02499-1CrossRef

24.

Balp, M.M., Khalil, S., Tian, H., Gabriel, S., Vietri, J., Zuberbier, T.: Burden of chronic urticaria relative to psoriasis in five European countries. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatology Venereology 32(2), 282–290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.14584CrossRef

25.

Hirvonen, M.J., Pasternack, R., Lipitsä, T., et al.: Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa Suffer from Low Health-Related Quality of Life as measured by the generic 15D instrument. Skin appendage disorders. 8(3):221–227. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1159/000520839

26.

Silverberg, J.I., Margolis, D.J., Boguniewicz, M., et al.: Validation of five patient-reported outcomes for atopic dermatitis severity in adults. Br. J. Dermatol. 182(1), 104–111 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18002CrossRefPubMed

27.

Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Janssen, M.F.: A direct comparison of the Measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS Global Health Instruments and EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities in a General Population Sample. Value Health. 26(7), 1045–1056 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.02.002CrossRef

28.

Zhang, J., Dewitt, B., Tang, E., et al.: Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrology: 16(9), 1328–1336 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.01880221CrossRef

29.

Ahmad, H., Campbell, J.A., van der Mei, I., et al.: Estimating the disutility of relapse in relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using the EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L-psychosocial, and SF-6D: Implications for health economic evaluation models. Quality of Life Research. 32(12), 3373–3387 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03486-yCrossRef

30.

Pan, T., Wu, Y., Buchanan, J., Goranitis, I.: QALYs and rare diseases: Exploring the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing for childhood and adult-onset rare genetic conditions in Australia. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 21(1), 132 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02216-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Richardson, J., Khan, M.A., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A.: Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med. Decis. Making. 35(3), 276–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14543107CrossRef

32.

Bató, A., Brodszky, V., Gergely, L.H., et al.: The measurement performance of the EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Qual. Life Res. 30(5):1477–1490. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02732-x

33.

Koszorú, K., Hajdu, K., Brodszky, V., et al.: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis. Eur. J. Health Eco. 24(1), 139–152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01460-yCrossRef

34.

Poór, A.K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., et al.: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Qual. Life Res. 26(12), 3409–3419 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-xCrossRef

35.

Rencz, F., Janssen, M.F.: Analyzing the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression composite domains and the meaning of discomfort in the EQ-5D: A mixed-methods study. Value Health. 25(12), 2003–2016 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.012CrossRef

36.

Bató, A., Brodszky, V., Mitev, A.Z., Jenei, B., Rencz, F.: Psychometric properties and general population reference values for PROMIS Global Health in Hungary. Eur. J. Health Eco. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01610-wCrossRef

37.

Jenei, B., Bató, A., Mitev, A.Z., Brodszky, V., Rencz, F.: Hungarian PROMIS-29+2: Psychometric properties and population reference values. Qual. Life Res. 32(8), 2179–2194 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03364-7CrossRef

38.

Nikl, A., Janssen, M.F., Jenei, B., Brodszky, V., Rencz, F.: Population norms for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D in Hungary. PharmacoEconomics. 42(5), 583–603 (2024)

39.

EUROSTAT: European Health Interview Survey (EHIS wave 3) — Methodological manual. 10.2785/020714. Accessed June 11:. (2018) (2021). https://doi.org/10.2785/020714

40.

Angyal, M.M., Lakatos, P.L., Jenei, B., Brodszky, V., Rencz, F.: Health utilities and willingness to pay in adult patients with coeliac disease in Hungary. Qual. Life Res. 32(9), 2503–2516 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03418-wCrossRef

41.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N.J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P.F., de Charro, F.: A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 17(4), 445–453 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002CrossRef

42.

Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., et al.: Parallel valuation of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L by Time Trade-Off in Hungary. Value Health. 23(9), 1235–1245 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.019CrossRef

43.

Rencz, F., Péntek, M., Stalmeier, P.F.M., et al.: Bleeding out the quality-adjusted life years: Evaluating the burden of primary dysmenorrhea using time trade-off and willingness-to-pay methods. Pain. 158(11), 2259–2267 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001028CrossRefPubMed

44.

Rencz, F., Ruzsa, G., Bató, A., Yang, Z., Finch, A.P., Brodszky, V.: Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary. PharmacoEconomics. 40(Suppl 2), 205–215 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01190-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-xCrossRef

46.

Pickard, A.S., Law, E.H., Jiang, R., et al.: United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States using an International Protocol. Value Health. 22(8), 931–941 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009CrossRef

47.

Cella, D., Choi, S.W., Condon, D.M., et al.: PROMIS(^®) Adult Health profiles: Efficient short-form measures of Seven Health domains. Value Health. 22(5), 537–544 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004

48.

Dewitt, B., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., et al.: Estimation of a preference-based Summary score for the patient-reported outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS(^®)-Preference (PROPr) Scoring System. Med. Decis. Making. 38(6), 683–698 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x18776637

49.

Ware, J.E. Jr., Sherbourne, C.D.: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care. 30(6), 473–483 (1992)CrossRefPubMed

50.

Craig, B.M., Pickard, A.S., Stolk, E., Brazier, J.E.: US valuation of the SF-6D. Med. Decis. Making. 33(6), 793–803 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13482524CrossRef

51.

Hays, R.D., Bjorner, J.B., Revicki, D.A., Spritzer, K.L., Cella, D.: Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual. Life Res. 18(7), 873–880 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9CrossRef

52.

Terwee, C.B., Bot, S.D., de Boer, M.R., et al.: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60(1), 34–42 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012CrossRefPubMed

53.

Feng, Y.S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M.F., Buchholz, I.: Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research. 30(3), 647–673 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02688-yCrossRef

54.

Evans, J.D.: Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co (1996)

55.

Klapproth, C.P., Sidey-Gibbons, C.J., Valderas, J.M., Rose, M., Fischer, F.: Comparison of the PROMIS Preference score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L Index Value in General Population Samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Value Health. 25(5), 824–834 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.012CrossRef

56.

Pan, T., Mulhern, B., Viney, R., Norman, R., Hanmer, J., Devlin, N.: A comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L value sets. PharmacoEconomics. 40(3), 297–307 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01109-3CrossRefPubMed

57.

Sayah, F.A., Qiu, W., Xie, F., Johnson, J.A.: Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research. 26(8), 2057–2066 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1559-8CrossRef

58.

Xu, R.H., Ma, B., Xin, H., et al.: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr in patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 21(1), 123 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02204-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Mulhern, B.J., Pan, T., Norman, R., et al.: U measurement relationship between EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr. Quality of Life Research. 32(11), 3147–3160. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03462-6

60.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13(9), 873–884 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866CrossRefPubMed

61.

Cicchetti, D.V.: Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol. Assess. 6(4), 284–290 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284CrossRef

62.

Shrout, P.E., Fleiss, J.L.: Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86(2), 420–428 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420

63.

Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G.: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (London England). 1(8476), 307–310 (1986)CrossRefPubMed

64.

Giavarina, D.: Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochemia Med. 25(2), 141–151 (2015)CrossRef

65.

Arnold, D., Girling, A., Stevens, A., Lilford, R.: Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. BMJ (Clinical Res. ed). 339(b2688) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2688

66.

Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic (2013)

67.

Tomczak, M., Tomczak, E.: The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Tren Sport Sci. 21(1), 19–25. (2024)

68.

Tamási, B., Brodszky, V., Péntek, M., et al.: Validity of the EQ-5D in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. Br. J. Dermatol. 180(4), 802–809 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16883CrossRefPubMed

69.

Rencz, F., Mukuria, C., Bató, A., Poór, A.K., Finch, A.P.: A qualitative investigation of the relevance of skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-ons and their conceptual overlap with the EQ-5D in patients with psoriasis. Quality of Life Research. 31(10), 3049–3060 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03141-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

70.

Swinburn, P., Lloyd, A., Boye, K.S., Edson-Heredia, E., Bowman, L., Janssen, B.: Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: Lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health. 16(8), 1156–1162 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.003CrossRefPubMed

71.

Szlávicz, E., Szabó, Á., Kinyó, Á., et al.: Content validity of the EQ-5D-5L with skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-ons in patients with atopic dermatitis: A qualitative think-aloud study. Quality of Life Research. 33(1), 101–111 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03519-6CrossRef

72.

Hajdu, K., Brodszky, V., Stalmeier, P.F.M., et al.: Patient-assigned health utility values for controlled and uncontrolled pemphigus vulgaris and foliaceus. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatology Venereology 33(11), 2106–2113 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15765CrossRefPubMed

73.

Jantarakolica T., Wanitphakdeedecha R., Yan C., et al: Willingness to Pay and Time Trade-off in Thai Patients with Port-Wine Stains. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research. 14:635–642. (2022) https://doi.org/10.2147/ceor.S382735

74.

Küster, D., Haufe, E., Rethberg, C., Bauer, A., Seidler, A., Schmitt, J.: Health utilities for controlled and uncontrolled chronic hand eczema in healthcare employees. Contact Dermat. 78(1), 18–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12863CrossRef

75.

Leeyaphan, C., Wanitphakdeedecha, R., Manuskiatti, W., Kulthanan, K.: Measuring melasma patients’ quality of life using willingness to pay and time trade-off methods in Thai population. BMC Dermatol. 11, 16 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-5945-11-16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Maymone, M.B.C., Rajanala, S., Widjajahakim, R., Secemsky, E., Saade, D., Vashi, N.A.: Willingness-to-pay and Time Trade-off: The Burden of Disease in patients with Benign Hyperpigmentation. J. Clin. Aesthetic Dermatol. 12(5), 46–48 (2019)

77.

Poór, A.K., Brodszky, V., Péntek, M., et al.: Is the DLQI appropriate for medical decision-making in psoriasis patients? Arch. Dermatol. Res. 310(1), 47–55 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1794-4CrossRefPubMed

78.

Schmitt, J., Meurer, M., Klon, M., Frick, K.D.: Assessment of health state utilities of controlled and uncontrolled psoriasis and atopic eczema: A population-based study. Br. J. Dermatol. 158(2), 351–359 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08354.xCrossRefPubMed

79.

Seidler, A.M., Bayoumi, A.M., Goldstein, M.K., Cruz, P.D. Jr., Chen, S.C.: Willingness to pay in dermatology: Assessment of the burden of skin diseases. J. Invest. Dermatol. 132(7), 1785–1790 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2012.50CrossRefPubMed

80.

Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Silverdahl, M., Hermansson, C., Lindberg, M.: Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br. J. Dermatol. 141(6), 1067–1075 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.03207.xCrossRefPubMed

81.

Schiffner, R., Brunnberg, S., Hohenleutner, U., Stolz, W., Landthaler, M.: Willingness to pay and time trade-off: Useful utility indicators for the assessment of quality of life and patient satisfaction in patients with port wine stains. Br. J. Dermatol. 146(3), 440–447 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.04613.xCrossRefPubMed

82.

Jiang, R., Shaw, J., Mühlbacher, A., et al.: Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 30(5), 1433–1444 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02712-1CrossRef

83.

Matza, L.S., Stewart, K.D., Lloyd, A.J., Rowen, D., Brazier, J.E.: Vignette-based utilities: Usefulness, limitations, and methodological recommendations. Value Health. 24(6), 812–821 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.017CrossRef

84.

Devlin, N., Roudijk, B., Ludwig, K. (eds.): Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L: A Compendium, Comparative Review & User Guide. Springer (2022) ISBN: 978-3-030-89288-3

85.

Patel, A., Jafferany, M.: Multidisciplinary and holistic models of care for patients with dermatologic Disease and Psychosocial Comorbidity: A systematic review. JAMA Dermatology. 156(6), 686–694 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0394CrossRefPubMed

86.

Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Brazier, J., et al.: Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing measure: Psychometric survey results for the EQ-HWB. Value Health. 25(4), 525–533 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1361CrossRef

87.

Rencz, F., Janssen, M.F.: Testing the Psychometric properties of 9 bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L in a General Population Sample. Value Health. 27(7), 943–954 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.2195CrossRef

Title: Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases
Authors: Ákos Szabó
Valentin Brodszky
Fanni Rencz
Publication date: 28-09-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01728-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Springer Medicine

Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content