Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Normative utility scores represent the health related quality of life of the general population, are of utmost importance in cost-effectiveness studies and should reflect relevant sexes and age groups. The aim of this study was to estimate EQ-5D-5L normative utility scores in a population of Dutch females, stratified by age, and to compare these scores to those of female populations of three other countries.
Methods
Dutch women completed the EQ-5D-5L online between January and July 2020. Mean normative utilities were computed using the Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set, stratified by age, tested for differences using the Kruskall–Wallis test, and compared to normative utility scores of female populations elsewhere. Additionally, to support the use of the Dutch EQ-5D-5L data in other settings, normative utility scores were also calculated by applying the value sets of Germany, United Kingdom and USA.
Results
Data of 9037 women were analyzed and the weighted mean utility score was 0.911 (SD 0.155, 95% CI 0.908–0.914). The mean normative utility scores differed between age groups, showing lower scores in older females. Compared to other normative utility scores of female populations, Dutch mean utilities were consistently higher except for age groups 18–24 and 25–34. With the three country-specific value sets, new age-specific mean normative utility scores were provided.
Conclusion
This study provides mean normative utility scores of a large cohort of Dutch females per age group, which were found to be lower in older age groups. Utility scores calculated with three other value sets were made available.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference34 articles.
1. Karimi, M., & Brazier, J. (2016). Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? PharmacoEconomics, 34(7), 645–649.
2. Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–603.
3. 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.
4. EQ-5D Valuation Standard Value Sets: EuroQoL EQ-5D; 2020 [updated 08–06–2021. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/valuation-standard-value-sets/.
5. de Kok, I., Korfage, I. J., van den Hout, W. B., Helmerhorst, T. J. M., Habbema, J. D. F., Essink-Bot, M. L., et al. (2018). Quality of life assumptions determine which cervical cancer screening strategies are cost-effective. International Journal of Cancer, 142(11), 2383–2393.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献