This presentation summarised the methods and findings of a methodological study seeking to compare candidate methods for anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y instrument onto the QALY scale where 0 equals dead. It was presented at the EuHEA conference in Maastricht.
Author(s) and affiliations: Koonal Shah, Office of Health Economics and University of Sheffield Juan Manel Ramos-Goñi, EuroQol Office Simone Kreimeier, Bielefeld University Nancy Devlin, Office of Health Economics and University of Sheffield
Conference/meeting: EuHEA 2018
Locationt: Maastricht, Netherlands
Date: 13/07/2018
Chandigarh Call Girls Service ❤️🍑 9809698092 👄🫦Independent Escort Service Cha...
Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y at 0 = dead
1. Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y
at 0 = dead
Koonal Shah1,2, Juan Manel Ramos-Goñi3, Simone Kreimeier4, Nancy Devlin1,2
[1] Office of Health Economics, UK
[2] University of Sheffield, UK
[3] EuroQol Office, Netherlands
[4] Bielefeld University, Germany
EuHEA Maastricht
13 July 2018
This study was funded by the EuroQol
Research Foundation. The views expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those
of the EuroQol Research Foundation.
2. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
2
EQ-5D-Y: state of play
• EQ-5D-Y – ‘youth’ version of the EQ-5D
• Use is modest but growing
• No values sets available to support its use in economic evaluation
• Recent research has indicated that regular EQ-5D-3L value sets cannot be
used for children and adolescents
• Concerns exist around the use of TTO to value the health of children
6. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
6
• Aims:
• To compare the use of alternative methods for establishing anchors
• To generate evidence to support the anchoring of UK latent scale DCE data
• To compare anchors for the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y
• Computer-assisted personal interviews (n=350)
• Respondents answered questions both about their own health (using
EQ-5D-3L) and about the health of a 10 year old child (using EQ-5D-Y)
• Two-arm design: random half of sample started with adult questions and
proceeded to child questions; ordering was reversed for the other half
Anchoring study
7. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
7
Study design
1. Introduction and warm-up questions
2. Ranking
(adult)
3. VAS
(adult)
4. TTO
(adult)
5. DCE with
duration
(adult)
6. Location of dead
tasks based on PUF
method (adult)
7. Half-way point – perspective switch
13. Debrief and background questions
8. Ranking
(child)
9. VAS
(child)
10. TTO
(child)
11. DCE with
duration
(child)
12. Location of dead
tasks based on PUF
method (child)
12. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
12
Deducing the region in which dead is located
13. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
13
Results
• All four methods show that the observed/predicted/estimated values (or
rescaled ratings, in the case of VAS) for 33333 were higher, on average,
under a child health perspective than under an adult health perspective
Adult perspective Child perspective
VAS -0.04 +0.07
TTO -0.37 -0.03
DCE -0.80 +0.06
LOD -0.50 -0.36
14. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
14
Results – valuation of 33333 in relation to dead
16. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
16
Criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method
• Feasibility
• Acceptability to decision makers
• Potential for administration online
• Theoretical and empirical coherence with the preference
data to be anchored
• Theoretical and empirical coherence with the methods for
valuing adult health
17. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH
17
Thank you for listening
To enquire about additional information and analyses, please contact Koonal Shah at
kshah@ohe.org
To keep up with the latest news and research, subscribe to our blog, OHE News
Follow us on Twitter @OHENews, LinkedIn and SlideShare
Office of Health Economics (OHE)
Southside, 7th Floor
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QT
United Kingdom
+44 20 7747 8850
www.ohe.org
OHE’s publications may be downloaded free of charge from our website.