Top

Published in:

Open Access 09-05-2022

Estimating the EQ-5D-5L value set for the Philippines

Authors: Red Thaddeus D. Miguel, Adovich S. Rivera, Kent Jason G. Cheng, Kim Rand, Fredrick Dermawan Purba, Nan Luo, Ma-Ann Zarsuelo, Anne Julienne Genuino-Marfori, Irene Florentino-Fariñas, Anna Melissa Guerrero, Hilton Y. Lam

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 9/2022

Abstract

Background

The Philippines has recommended the use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in government health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to develop a value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on health preferences of the healthy general adult population in the Philippines.

Methods

Healthy, literate adults were recruited from the Philippine general population with quota targets based on age, sex, administrative region, type of residence, education, income, and ethnolinguistic groups. Each participant’s preference was elicited by completing Composite Time Trade-Off (C-TTO) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) tasks. Tasks were computer-assisted using the EuroQol Valuation Technology 2.0. To estimate the value set, we explored 20- and 8-parameter models that either use c-TTO-only data or both c-TTO and DCE (also called hybrid models). Final model choice was guided by principles of monotonicity, out-of-sample likelihood, model fit, and parsimony.

Results

We recruited 1000 respondents with demographic characteristics that approximate the general population such as 49.6% Female, 82% Roman Catholic, 40% in urban areas, and 55% finished high school. None of the 20-parameter models demonstrated monotonicity (logical worsening of coefficients with increasing severity). From the 8-parameter models, the homoscedastic TTO-only model exhibited the best fit. From this model, mobility and pain/ discomfort had the highest effect on utilities.

Conclusion

The selected model for representing the Philippine general population preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states was an 8-parameter homoscedastic TTO-only model. This value set is recommended for use in QALY calculations in support of HTA-informed coverage decisions in the Philippines.

Available only for authorised users

World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices. WHO Medical Device Technical Series. Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405416654191

World Health Assembly. (2014). Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/162870

Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & Mcguire, A. (2009). QALYs : The basics. Value in Health, 12(S1).

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M. A. A., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health, 19(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003CrossRef

Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical care, 54(1), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447CrossRefPubMed

Pattanaphesaj, J., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Tongsiri, S., Ingsrisawang, L., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2018). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 18(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574CrossRefPubMed

Shafie, A. A., Vasan Thakumar, A., Lim, C. J., Luo, N., Rand-Hendriksen, K., & Md Yusof, F. A. (2019). EQ-5D-5L valuation for the malaysian population. PharmacoEconomics, 37(5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7CrossRefPubMed

Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2016). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Office of Health Economics, 16(01), 1–22.

10.

Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., Garay, O. U., Gianneo, O., Fernández, G., & Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2016). An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4CrossRefPubMed

11.

Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., & Shimozuma, K. (2016). Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value in Health, 19(5), 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kim, S. H., Ahn, J., Ock, M., Shin, S., Park, J., Luo, N., & Jo, M. W. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1845–1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2CrossRefPubMed

13.

Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed

14.

Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A. M., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2017). The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics, 35(11), 1153–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Craig, B. M., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Luo, N., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2018). Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value in Health, 21(5), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wong, E. L. Y., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Cheung, A. W. L., Wong, A. Y. K., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2018). Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong. Patient, 11(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ludwig, K., Graf von der Schulenburg, J. M., & Greiner, W. (2018). German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Health Technology Assessment Unit. (n.d.). Philippine HTA Methods Guide (1st editio.). Manila, Philippines. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/HTAMGPhilippines

19.

Lam, H., Ku, G. M., Wu, D., Cheng, K. J. G., Rivera, A., Tumanan-Mendoza, B., & Alejandria, M. (2016). Cost-effectiveness analysis of dengue vaccination in the Philippines. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 45(1), 421.CrossRef

20.

Guerrero, A., Genuino, A., & Santillan, M. (2014). A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papilloma virus vaccination in the Philippines. Value in Health, 17(7), A737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.115CrossRefPubMed

21.

Germar, M. J., Purugganan, C., Bernardino, M. S., Cuenca, B., Chen, Y. C., Li, X., & Lee, I. H. (2017). Cost-effectiveness analysis of AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine compared with human papillomavirus 6/11/16/18 vaccine in the Philippines, with the new 2-dose schedule. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics, 13(5), 1158–1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1269991CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Haasis, M. A., Ceria, J. A., Kulpeng, W., Teerawattananon, Y., & Alejandria, M. (2015). Do pneumococcal conjugate vaccines represent good value for money in a lower-middle income country? A cost-utility analysis in the Philippines. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131156CrossRef

23.

Sassi, F. (2006). Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy and Planning, 21(5), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czl018CrossRefPubMed

24.

Feng, X., Kim, D. D., Cohen, J. T., Neumann, P. J., & Ollendorf, D. A. (2020). Using QALYs versus DALYs to measure cost-effectiveness: How much does it matter? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(2), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000124CrossRefPubMed

25.

17th Philippine Congress. An Act Instituting Universal Health Care for All Filipinos, Prescribing Reforms In the Health Care System, Amending For The Purpose Certain Laws, Appropriating Funds Therefor. (2019). Philippines.

26.

Feng, Y., Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: An application to English data. Health Economics (United Kingdom), 27(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3560CrossRef

27.

Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2017). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care, 55(7), e51–e58. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283CrossRefPubMed

28.

Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Gu, Y., Norman, R., & Viney, R. (2014). Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—A QALY space model approach. Health Economics, 23, 1098–1114.CrossRef

30.

Rand-Hendriksen, K., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Augestad, L. A., & Luo, N. (2017). Less is more: Cross-validation testing of simplified nonlinear regression model specifications for EQ-5D-5L health state values. Value in Health, 20(7), 945–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.013CrossRefPubMed

31.

Reyes, C. M., Mina, C. D., & Asis, R. D. (2017). Inequality of opportunities among ethnic groups in the Philippines, (July), 1–66. Retrieved from https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1742.pdf

32.

Fernandez, L. (2012). Design and Implementation Features of the National Household Targeting System in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/70149.html

33.

Stolk, E., Ludwig, K., Rand, K., van Hout, B., & Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2019). Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 22(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010CrossRefPubMed

34.

Shah, K., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Ramos, J., Prause, A., & Stolk, E. (2014). Improving the quality of data collected in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: a summary of the EQ-VT research methodology programme. Proceedings of the 31st Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation.

35.

Wong, E. L. Y., Shah, K., Cheung, A. W. L., Wong, A. Y. K., Visser, M., & Stolk, E. (2018). Evaluation of split version and feedback module on the improvement of time trade-off data. Value in Health, 21(6), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.013CrossRefPubMed

36.

Rabin, R., Gudex, C., Selai, C., & Herdman, M. (2014). From translation to version management: A history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the euroqol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value in Health, 17(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006CrossRefPubMed

37.

Janssen, B. M. F., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Introducing the composite time trade-off: A test of feasibility and face validity. European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2CrossRef

38.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., Van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F. M., & De Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international eq-5d-5l valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002CrossRefPubMed

39.

Yang, Z., Van Busschbach, J., Timman, R., Janssen, M. F., & Luo, N. (2017). Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it? PLoS ONE, 12(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184883CrossRef

40.

Oppe, M., & van Hout, B. (2010). The optimal hybrid: Experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. In J. Yfantopoulos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group (pp. 61–72). Athens, Greece.

41.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2017). Literacy of Men and Women in the Philippines. Retrieved March 11, 2016, from https://psa.gov.ph/content/literacy-men-and-women-philippines-results-2008-functional-literacy-education-and-mass-media

Title: Estimating the EQ-5D-5L value set for the Philippines
Authors: Red Thaddeus D. Miguel
Adovich S. Rivera
Kent Jason G. Cheng
Kim Rand
Fredrick Dermawan Purba
Nan Luo
Ma-Ann Zarsuelo
Anne Julienne Genuino-Marfori
Irene Florentino-Fariñas
Anna Melissa Guerrero
Hilton Y. Lam
Publication date: 09-05-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 9/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03143-w

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Estimating the EQ-5D-5L value set for the Philippines

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2022

A comparison of methods to address item non-response when testing for differential item functioning in multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures

Self-assessed health status and associated mortality in endocarditis: secondary findings from the POET trial

Profile of individuals with low back pain and factors defining chronicity of pain: a population-based study in Ethiopia

Understanding factors that affect wellbeing in trans people “later” in transition: a qualitative study

Examining subjective well-being among older adults using pain medications

Associations of Mediterranean diet with psychological ill-being and well-being throughout the pregnancy course: The GESTAFIT project