Top

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-04-2018 | Original Research Article

Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong

Authors: Eliza L. Y. Wong, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi, Annie W. L. Cheung, Amy Y. K. Wong, Oliver Rivero-Arias

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Background

An international valuation protocol exists for obtaining societal values for each of the 3125 health states of the five-level EuroQol-five dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. A feedback module (FM) that can be related to theoretical models used in behavioral economics was recently included in this protocol.

Objectives

Our objective was to assess the impact of using an FM to estimate an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

Methods

EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited using a composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and a discrete-choice (DC) experiment. Use of the FM according to participant characteristics and the impact of the FM on the number of inconsistent C-TTO responses were assessed. We employed a main-effects hybrid model that combined data from both elicitation techniques.

Results

In total, 1014 individuals completed the survey. The sample was representative of the general Chinese Hong Kong population in terms of sex, educational attainment, marital status, and most age groups but not for employment status. The use of the FM reduced the number of C-TTO inconsistencies. Participant characteristics differed significantly between those who used and did not use the FM. The model without a constant resulted in logical consistent coefficients and was therefore selected as the model to produce the value set. The predicted EQ-5D-5L values ranged from −0.864 to 1.

Conclusions

The use of an FM to allow participants to exclude C-TTO responses reduced the number of inconsistent responses and improved the quality of the data when estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

Available only for authorised users

EuroQol G. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef

Kind P, Brooks RG, Rabin R. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.CrossRef

Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):395–413. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.CrossRefPubMed

Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin H-W, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;25(5):365–84. doi:10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002.CrossRef

Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014. doi:10.3310/hta18340.

Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.112.122283.CrossRefPubMed

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.CrossRefPubMed

Devlin N, Krabbe P. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Issue 1 Suppl):1–3.CrossRefPubMedCentral

10.

Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393–402. doi:10.1002/hec.1069.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S25–31. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0505-0.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Salomon J. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr. 2003;1(1):12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O’Hagan A, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):418–31. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.008.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012.

15.

Ludwig K, von der Schulenburg J-MG, Greiner W. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population—an exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):39. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0617-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):76–83. doi:10.1177/0272989X9801800115.CrossRef

17.

Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2005;14(1):39–53. doi:10.1002/hec.895.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Augestad LA, Stavem K, Kristiansen IS, Samuelsen CH, Rand-Hendriksen K. Influenced from the start: anchoring bias in time trade-off valuations. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:2179–91. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1266-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Edelaar-Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM, Van Den Hout WB. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(5):655–65. doi:10.1177/0272989X14524989.CrossRef

20.

Al Sayah F, Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Xie F, Bansback N, Canadian EQDLVSG. Health literacy and logical inconsistencies in valuations of hypothetical health states: results from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1483–92. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1495-z.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Brañas-Garza P, Smith J. Cognitive abilities and economic behavior. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:1–4. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.06.005.CrossRef

22.

Agranov M, Caplin A, Tergiman C. Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games. J Econ Sci Assoc. 2015;1(2):146–57. doi:10.1007/s40881-015-0003-5.CrossRef

23.

Agranov M, Potamites E, Schotter A, Tergiman C. Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: an experimental study. Games Econ Behav. 2012;75(2):449–63. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2012.02.002.CrossRef

24.

Schulz JF, Fischbacher U, Thöni C, Utikal V. Affect and fairness: dictator games under cognitive load. J Econ Psychol. 2014;41:77–87. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.007.CrossRef

25.

Benito-Ostolaza JM, Hernández P, Sanchis-Llopis JA. Do individuals with higher cognitive ability play more strategically? J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:5–11. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.01.005.CrossRef

26.

Kiss HJ, Rodriguez-Lara I, Rosa-García A. Think twice before running! Bank runs and cognitive abilities. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:12–9. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.01.006.CrossRef

27.

Corgnet B, Espín AM, Hernán-González R, Kujal P, Rassenti S. To trust, or not to trust: cognitive reflection in trust games. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:20–7. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.008.CrossRef

28.

Lohse J. Smart or selfish—when smart guys finish nice. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;64:28–40. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.002.CrossRef

29.

Ramos-Goni JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabases JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55(7):e51–8. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Garay OU, Gianneo O, Fernandez G, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2015;. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4.PubMed

31.

Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2017. doi:10.1002/hec.3564.PubMedCentral

33.

Kim SH, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2.PubMedCentral

34.

Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):297–510. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003.CrossRef

35.

Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Tilling C, Wilkinson G, et al. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517–32. doi:10.1002/hec.2819.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):348–61. doi:10.1002/hec.1596.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.CrossRef

38.

Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005–13. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Krabbe PF, Devlin NJ, Stolk EA, Shah KK, Oppe M, van Hout B, et al. Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care. 2014;52(11):935–43. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRef

41.

Alloway TP, Passolunghi MC. The relationship between working memory, IQ, and mathematical skills in children. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(1):133–7. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.013.CrossRef

42.

Alloway TP, Alloway RG. Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010;106(1):20–9. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Oppe M, van Hout B, editors. The optimal hybrid: experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. EuroQol Group Proceedings, 2013.

44.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):328–40. doi:10.1177/0272989X14559542.CrossRef

45.

Ramos-Goñi J, Craig AM, Oppe M, Van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2016.

46.

Feng Y, Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Mulhern B, van Hout B. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to english data. Health Econ. 2017. doi:10.1002/hec.3560.PubMedCentral

47.

Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station: Stata Press; 2009.

48.

Shah K, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. An empirical study of two alternative comparators for use in time trade-off studies. Value Health. 2016;19(1):53–9. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.012.CrossRefPubMed

49.

StataCorp. Stata statistical software release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP2014.

50.

Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;19(6):716–23.CrossRef

51.

Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–9. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goni JM, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9 (Epub 10 July 2017).

53.

Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, Saito S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–54. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Karimi M, Brazier J, Paisley S. The effect of reflection and deliberation on health state values. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2016.

55.

Robinson S, Bryan S. Does the process of deliberation change individuals’ health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique. Value Health. 2013;16(5):806–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1633.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(1):8–20. doi:10.1177/0272989X13480852.CrossRef

57.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.CrossRefPubMed

58.

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(3):221–8.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–53. doi:10.1002/hec.673.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PloS One. 2012;7(2):e31115. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Viney R, Norman R, King MT, Cronin P, Street DJ, Knox S, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14(6):928–36. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Olken BA. Promises and perils of pre-analysis plans. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):61–80. doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.61.CrossRef

63.

Coffman LC, Niederle M. Pre-analysis plans have limited upside, especially where replications are feasible. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):81–97. doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.81.CrossRef

64.

Kong X, Yang Y, Gao J, Guan J, Liu Y, Wang R, et al. Overview of the health care system in Hong Kong and its referential significance to mainland China. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015;78(10):569–73. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2015.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Census and Statistics Department. 2016 Population by-census: Summary results. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2017. p. 1–164. http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11200942016XXXXB0100.pdf.

66.

Census and Statistics Department. 2011 Population census main report: Volume I. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2012. p. 1–309. http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11200592012XXXXB0100.pdf.

Title: Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong
Authors: Eliza L. Y. Wong
Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi
Annie W. L. Cheung
Amy Y. K. Wong
Oliver Rivero-Arias
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Ventral Hernia Repair: Designing a Qualitative Assessment Tool

A Systematic Review of Patient and Caregiver Experiences with a Tracheostomy

Symptom Monitoring in Pediatric Oncology Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: Why, How, and Where Next

The Primacy of Patient-Centered Outcomes in Tracheostomy Care

Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer

Evaluation of Patient and Family Engagement Strategies to Improve Medication Safety

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials