Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) represent a critical metric in economic evaluations impacting key healthcare decisions in many countries. However, there is widespread disagreement as to which is the best of the health state utility (HSU) instruments that are designed to measure the Q in the QALY. Instruments differ in their descriptive systems as well as their valuation methodologies; that is, they simply measure different things. We propose a visual framework that can be utilized to make meaningful comparisons across HSU instruments.
Methods
The framework expands on existing HRQoL models, by incorporating four distinctive continua, and by putting HRQoL within the broader notion of subjective well-being (SWB). Using this conceptual map, we locate the five most widely used HSU-instruments (EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI, 15D, AQoL).
Results
By individually mapping dimensions onto this visual framework, we provide a clear picture of the significant conceptual and operational differences between instruments. Moreover, the conceptual map demonstrates the varying extent to which each instrument moves outside the traditional biomedical focus of physical health, to also incorporate indicators of mental health and social well-being.
Conclusion
Our visual comparison provides useful insights to assess the suitability of different instruments for particular purposes. Following on from this comparative analyses, we extract some important lessons for a new instrument that cover the domains of physical, mental and social aspects of health, i.e. it is in alignment with the seminal 1948 WHO definition of health.
Funder
The Researche Council of Norway
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference29 articles.
1. Brazier, J. E., Ara, R., Rowen, D., & Chevrou-Severac, H. (2017). A review of generic preference-based Measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics,35(1), 21–31.
2. Gamst-Klaussen, T., Chen, G., Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quality of Life Research,25(7), 1667–1678.
3. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research,24, 2045–2053.
4. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Rowen, D., Zouraq, I. A., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics,35(1), 11–19.
Cited by
29 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