Abstract
Abstract
Background
In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses.
Methods
We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups.
Results
The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was − 0.036 (95% CI − 0.065 to − 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003) and − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively.
Conclusions
Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine
Reference43 articles.
1. Zhao Y, Feng H, Qu J, Luo X, Ma W, Tian J. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. J Med Econ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118.
2. Sharma D, Aggarwal AK, Downey LE, Prinja S. National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: a cross-country comparison. PharmacoEconomics Open. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7.
3. Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health National Institute of Public Health (C2h). Guideline for preparing cost-effectiveness evaluation to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. version 2.0. 2019. https://c2h.niph.go.jp/tools/guideline/guideline_en.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2021.
4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (4th ed.). 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2021
5. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001.
Cited by
2 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