Display options
Cite
Mozzi A, Meregaglia M, Lazzaro C, et al. A comparison of EuroQol 5-Dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:267-74doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S98226.
Mozzi, A., Meregaglia, M., Lazzaro, C., Tornatore, V., Belfiglio, M., & Fattore, G. (2016). A comparison of EuroQol 5-Dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 8267-74. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S98226
Mozzi, Adelaide, et al. "A comparison of EuroQol 5-Dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample." ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR vol. 8 (2016): 267-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S98226
Mozzi A, Meregaglia M, Lazzaro C, Tornatore V, Belfiglio M, Fattore G. A comparison of EuroQol 5-Dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 13;8:267-74. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S98226. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27358571; PMCID: PMC4912314.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 13;8:267-74. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S98226. eCollection 2016.

A comparison of EuroQol 5-Dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patient sample.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Adelaide Mozzi, Michela Meregaglia, Carlo Lazzaro, Valentina Tornatore, Maurizio Belfiglio, Giovanni Fattore

Affiliations

  1. Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
  2. Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
  3. Studio di Economia Sanitaria, Milan, Italy.
  4. AbbVie srl, Campoverde Di Aprilia, Latina, Italy.
  5. Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy; Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.

PMID: 27358571 PMCID: PMC4912314 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S98226

Abstract

Weights associated with the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) instrument represent preferences for health states elicited from general population's samples. Weights have not been calculated for every country; however, empirical research shows that cross-country differences exist. This empirical study aims at investigating the impact of recently developed Italian weights in comparison with UK and US scores on health-related utility calculation using a sample of patients with Crohn's disease. The study is based on a survey on health-related quality of life in patients (n=552) affected by active Crohn's disease conducted in Italy from 2012 to 2013. Utilities computed through the Italian algorithm (mean: 0.76; SD: 0.20; median: 0.81) are generally higher than US (mean: 0.69; SD: 0.22; median: 0.77) and UK (mean: 0.57; SD: 0.32; median: 0.69) utilities, except for extremely severe health states where US values outweigh the Italian ones. UK preference weights generate the highest number of negative results. All the three value distributions are left-skewed due to very low scores associated with the most serious health states (ie, three or four levels equal to 3). As expected, despite the tariff set considered, more severe disease (Harvey Bradshaw Index >16) reduces the mean conditional EQ-5D-3L index (P<0.0001). Kendall's rank correlation between EQ Visual Analog Scale score and EQ-5D-3L index is positive (P<0.0001), even though patients tend to value their health-related quality of life more when responding to EQ-5D-3L questions than on EQ Visual Analog Scale. Regardless of the tariff set considered, ordinary least-square results highlight that more severe disease (Harvey Bradshaw Index >16) reduces the mean conditional EQ-5D-3L index (P<0.0001). Results reveal remarkable differences among the three national tariff sets and especially when severe health states occur, suggesting the need for country-specific preference weights when evaluating utilities, which can be problematic since they have not been calculated for every country yet.

Keywords: Crohn’s disease; EQ-5D; VAS; preference weights; utility values

References

  1. World J Surg. 1998 Apr;22(4):375-81 - PubMed
  2. Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):203-20 - PubMed
  3. Med Care. 1986 Nov;24(11):973-80 - PubMed
  4. Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14 (5 Suppl 1):S60-4 - PubMed
  5. Qual Life Res. 2007 Aug;16(6):1065-72 - PubMed
  6. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:209-18 - PubMed
  7. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Sep 23;6:71 - PubMed
  8. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83 - PubMed
  9. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Dec;70(12 ):2163-6 - PubMed
  10. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208 - PubMed
  11. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997 Dec;32(12):1235-40 - PubMed
  12. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):295-306 - PubMed
  13. Pain. 1994 Sep;58(3):387-92 - PubMed
  14. Value Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):305-11 - PubMed
  15. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-16 - PubMed
  16. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2012 Jun 18;44(3):397-402 - PubMed
  17. Value Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(5):814-22 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Nov;14(11):1205-15 - PubMed
  19. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Jan 1;19(1):63-8 - PubMed
  20. Qual Life Res. 2013 Sep;22(7):1717-27 - PubMed
  21. Br Med Bull. 2011;97:197-210 - PubMed

Publication Types