Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2018

People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: would they rather be dead?

Authors: Lars Bernfort, Björn Gerdle, Magnus Husberg, Lars-Åke Levin

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measure health by combining length and quality of life. QALYs constitute the effect side of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, describing the results of health economic evaluations. The objectives of this study were to (1) investigate the prevalence of states worse than dead (SWD) when using the EuroQol-5D UK value set, and (2) to study to what extent SWDs are reasonable with a starting point in experience-based valuations of health states.

Methods

Data from a Swedish cross-sectional population survey were used. The survey was directed to 10,000 persons 65 years and older and its primary aim was to investigate the prevalence and consequences of chronic pain. The survey included questions reflecting life situation and well-being. Some of these were used in order to characterise people in SWD.

Results

SWD were found in 1.8% of the 6611 respondents. The prevalence of SWD increased with advancing age and was more common among women than men. The control questions used indicated that most of the persons being in SWD according to the EQ-5D UK value set most probably would not judge themselves to be in a SWD.

Conclusions

Though negative QALY-weights are not very common, they constitute a non-negligible part of health states in a Swedish population 65 years and older. Prevalence of SWD is higher among women than men and increases with age. From responses to other questions on well-being and life situation, there is reason to doubt the reasonableness of experience-based negative QALY-weights in many cases.

Torrance, G. W. (1976). Social preferences for health states—empirical evaluation of 3 measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10(3), 129–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(76)90036-7.CrossRef

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University.

Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118–133.PubMedPubMedCentral

Patrick, D. L., Bush, J. W., & Chen, M. M. (1973). Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Services Research, 8(3), 228–245.PubMedPubMedCentral

EuroQol-Group (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef

Dolan, P. (1995). A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Working paper. University of York: Centre for Health Economics.

Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science Medicine, 44(10), 1519–1530.CrossRefPubMed

Rosser, R., & Kind, P. (1978). A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology, 7(4), 347–358.CrossRefPubMed

Torrance, G. W. (1982). Preferences for health states: A review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symposium on Perinatal and Developmental Medicine, 20, 37–45.

10.

Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (2006). Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: Valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics, 15(4), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1069.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Richardson, J., & Hawthorne, G. (2001). Negative utility scores and evaluating the AQoL all worst health state. Monash Working Paper. Monash University: Centre for health program evaluation.

12.

TLV. (2003). Guidelines for economic evaluations. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-economic-evaluations-LFNAR-2003-2.pdf.

13.

Hadorn, D. (1991). The role of public values in setting health care priorities. Social Science Medicine, 32(7), 773–781.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A., et al. (2005). Should patients have a greater role in the valuation of health status? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(4), 201–208.CrossRefPubMed

15.

De Wit, G. A., Busschbach, J. J., & De Charro, F. T. (2000). Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: Whose values count? Health Economics, 9(2), 109–126.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dolan, P. (2008). Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Economics Policy and Law, 3(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133107004355.CrossRef

18.

Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Gold, M. R., Kamlet, M. S., & Russell, L. B. (1996). Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 276(15), 1253–1258.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Economic Journal, 118(525), 215–234.CrossRef

20.

Bernfort, L., Gerdle, B., Rahmqvist, M., Husberg, M., & Levin, L. A. (2015). Severity of chronic pain in an elderly population in Sweden—impact on costs and quality of life. Pain, 156(3), 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460336.31600.01.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dupuy, H. J. (1977). The General Well-being schedule. In I. McDowell & C. Newell (Eds.), Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaire (2nd ed. pp. 206–213). New York: Oxford University Press.

22.

Andrews, F., & Robinson, J. (1991). Measures of subjective well-being. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Cambridge: Academic Press.

23.

Howell, R., Kern, M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Health benefits: Meta-analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychology Review, 1, 83–136.CrossRef

24.

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917–927.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Tyc, V. L. (1992). Psychosocial adaptation of children and adolescents with limb deficiencies—A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 12(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(92)90138-X.CrossRef

26.

Wu, S. (2001). Adapting to heart conditions: A test of the hedonic treadmill. Journal of Health Economics, 20(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00084-4.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2001). Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well-being in old age: A meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(4), P195–P213. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.4.P195.CrossRef

28.

Orfila, F., Ferrer, M., Lamarca, R., Tebe, C., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Alonso, J. (2006). Gender differences in health-related quality of life among the elderly: The role of objective functional capacity and chronic conditions. Social Science & Medicine, 63(9), 2367–2380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.017.CrossRef

29.

Liang, J., Bennett, J. M., Sugisawa, H., Kobayashi, E., & Fukaya, T. (2003). Gender differences in old age mortality—roles of health behavior and baseline health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(6), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00060-X.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kirchengast, S., & Haslinger, B. (2008). Gender differences in health-related quality of life among healthy aged and old-aged Austrians: Cross-sectional analysis. Gender Medicine, 5(3), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2008.07.001.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bradbeer, M., Helme, R. D., Yong, H. H., Kendig, H. L., & Gibson, S. J. (2003). Widowhood and other demographic associations of pain in independent older people. Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(4), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200307000-00008.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cheng, S. T., & Chan, A. C. M. (2006). Relationship with others and life satisfaction in later life: Do gender and widowhood make a difference? Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), P46–P53. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.1.P46.CrossRef

33.

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(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

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. Health Economics, 27(7), 7–22.

35.

Heijink, R., Reitmeir, P., & Leidl, R. (2017). International comparison of experience-based health state values at the population level. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0694-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Heintz, E., Gerber-Grote, A., Ghabri, S., Hamers, F. F., Rupel, V. P., Slabe-Erker, R., et al. (2016). Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Polsky, D., Willke, R., Scott, K., Schulman, K., & Glick, H. (2001). A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol derived from patients and the general public. Health Economics, 10(1), 27–37.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Peeters, Y., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2010). Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value in Health, 13(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.x.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Little, M., Reitmeir, P., Peters, A., & Leidl, R. (2014). The impact of differences between patient and general population EQ-5D values on the mean tariff scores of different patient groups. Value in Health, 17(4), 364–371.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Aronsson, M., Husberg, M., Kalkan, A., Eckard, N., & Alwin, J. (2014). Differences between hypothetical and experience-based value sets for Eq-5d: Implications for decision makers. Value in Health, 17(7), 848–854.CrossRef

41.

Kiadaliri, A. A., Eliasson, B., & Gerdtham, U. G. (2015). Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12955-015-0344-Z.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Gulfe, A., Wallman, J. K., & Kristensen, L. E. (2016). EuroQol-5 dimensions utility gain according to British and Swedish preference sets in rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: A prospective cohort study from southern Sweden. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 18(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-016-0950-0.CrossRef

43.

Burstrom, K., Sun, S., Gerdtham, U. G., Henriksson, M., Johannesson, M., Levin, L. A., et al. (2014). Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0496-4.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Leidl, R., & Reitmeir, P. (2011). A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: Development and testing for the German population. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(6), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Leidl, R., Reitmeir, P., Konig, H. H., & Stark, R. (2012). The performance of a value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Value in Health, 15(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Leidl, R., Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., Steinacker, J. M., & Reitmeir, P. (2016). Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: How well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients’ valuations? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0453-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: would they rather be dead?
Authors: Lars Bernfort
Björn Gerdle
Magnus Husberg
Lars-Åke Levin
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1848-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: would they rather be dead?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity

Agreement between retrospectively and contemporaneously collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hip and knee replacement patients

Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets

Measurement invariance, the lack thereof, and modeling change

PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores

Coping mediates the relationship between sense of coherence and mental quality of life in patients with chronic illness: a cross-sectional study