Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-05-2019

A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms

Authors: Yvonne Anne Michel, Liv Ariane Augestad, Mathias Barra, Kim Rand

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2019

Abstract

Purpose

So far there is no Norwegian value algorithm to inform healthcare decision making. The 15D health state values estimated with the original 15D valuation procedure tend to be higher than the values of other generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The main purpose of this study was to use a new 15D valuation procedure to estimate Norwegian 15D health state values and to explore their empirical performance.

Methods

The visual analogue scale was used to collect 15D valuation data in a representative sample of the Norwegian general population. The new procedure used fewer valuation tasks and anchored the 15D health state values in an empirically assessed range. The Norwegian 15D health state values were compared to the values of five HRQoL instruments which were provided by Norwegian residents belonging to seven disease groups and a healthy population.

Results

The Norwegian 15D health state values ranged from 1 to − 0.52. Compared to 15D health state values estimated with the original procedure, the Norwegian 15D health state values were lower and more in line with values of other HRQoL instruments.

Conclusions

The new 15D valuation procedure is simpler, links the 15D health state values better to the requirements of the QALY model, and provides an empirically-based range. We recommend using the new valuation procedure in future 15D valuation studies, and the Norwegian health state values for use in 15D-based health economic analyses in Norway.

Available only for authorised users

Sintonen, H. 15D instrument homepage. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://www.15d-instrument.net/15d/.

Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.CrossRefPubMed

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). 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. Medical Decision Making, 35, 276–291.CrossRefPubMed

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1 Background, questions, instruments. Research Paper 76. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper76.pdf.

Sintonen, H., & Richardson, J. (1994). The 15-d measure of health related quality of life: Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Natl Cent Health Program Eval Work Pap 41 Melbourne. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://business.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/391374/wp41-1.pdf.

Stavem, K. (1998). Quality of life in epilepsy: Comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Research, 29, 201–209.CrossRefPubMed

Sintonen, H. (1995). The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. II. Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Natl Cent Health Program Eval Work Pap 42 Melbourne. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://business.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/391422/wp42.pdf.

Wittrup-Jensen, K., & Pedersen, K. (2008). Modelling Danish weights for the 15D quality of life questionnaire by applying multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). Health Econ. Pap 7. University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from https://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Centre/cohere/Working%20papers/20087.pdf.

Michel, Y. A., Augestad, L. A., & Rand, K. (2018). Comparing 15D valuation studies in Norway and Finland—Challenges when combining information from several valuation tasks. Value in Health, 21, 462–470.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

11.

Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: The basics. Value in Health, 12, 5–9.CrossRef

12.

Augestad, L. A., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2013). Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: Implications of using “death”as an anchor in health state valuation. Quality of Life Research, 22, 705–714.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Solberg, C. T., Norheim, O. F., & Barra, M. (2018). The disvalue of death in the global burden of disease. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44, 192–198.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Miyamoto, J. M., Wakker, P. P., Bleichrodt, H., & Peters, H. J. (1998). The zero-condition: A simplifying assumption in QALY measurement and multiattribute utility. Management Science, 44, 839–849.CrossRef

15.

Engel, L., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Doyle-Waters, M. M., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2016). Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 36, 798–810.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 6 Norway. Research Paper 83. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper83.pdf.

17.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7, 85–96.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Furlong, W., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kalton, G. (1983). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Introduction to survey sampling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRef

22.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G., & Maxwell, A. (2016). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making, 36, 147–159.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21, 329–334.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nord, E. (1991). The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 6, 234–242.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Brazier, J., Green, C., McCabe, C., & Stevens, K. (2003). Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 3, 293–302.CrossRef

26.

Richardson, J. (1994). Cost utility analysis: What should be measured? Social Science and Medicine, 39, 7–21.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Johannesson, M., Jönsson, B., & Karlsson, G. (1996). Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics, 5, 279–296.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Brazier, J., Deverill, M., & Green, C. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4, 174–184.CrossRef

29.

Stevens, S. S., & Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Parkin, D., & Devlin, N. J. (2006). Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Economics, 15, 653–664.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B. J., Pantiri, K., & van Hout, B. (2018). A new method for valuing health: Directly eliciting personal utility functions. The European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0993-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Gandhi, M., Rand, K., & Luo, N. (2018). Valuation of Health States Considered to Be Worse Than Death—An Analysis of Composite Time Trade-Off Data From 5 EQ-5D-5L Valuation Studies. Value in Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.10.002.CrossRefPubMed

Title: A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms
Authors: Yvonne Anne Michel
Liv Ariane Augestad
Mathias Barra
Kim Rand
Publication date: 01-05-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2043-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Change in quality of life among community-dwelling older adults: population-based longitudinal study

Mild cognitive impairment in combination with comorbid diabetes mellitus and hypertension is negatively associated with health-related quality of life among older persons in Taiwan

Development of the Integrated Parkinson’s Care Network (IPCN): using co-design to plan collaborative care for people with Parkinson’s disease

Psychometric properties and factorial analysis of invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in cancer patients

Health-related quality of life and related factors among elderly persons under different aged care models in Guangzhou, China: a cross-sectional study

How depressed is “depressed”? A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis of optimal cut points for the Beck Depression Inventory revised (BDI-II)