Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Russia.
Composite time trade-off
Discreet choice experiment
EQ-5D-3L valuation
Population preference
Utility measurement
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
accepted:
16
02
2021
pubmed:
14
3
2021
medline:
24
7
2021
entrez:
13
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The most widely used generic questionnaire to estimate the quality of life for yielding quality-adjusted life years in economic evaluations is EQ-5D. Country-specific population value sets are required to use EQ-5D in economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to establish an EQ-5D-3L value set for Russia. A representative sample aged 18+ years was recruited from the Russia`s general population. Computer-assisted face-to-face interviews were conducted based on the standardized valuation protocol using EQ-Portable Valuation Technology. Population preferences were elicited utilizing both composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) techniques. To estimate the value set, a hybrid regression model combining cTTO and DCE data was used. A total of 300 respondents who successfully completed the interview were included in the primary analysis. 120 (40.0%) respondents reported no health problems of any dimension, and 56 (18.7%) reported moderate health problems in one dimension of the EQ-5D-3L. Median self-rated health using EQ-VAS was 80 with IQR 70-90. Comparing cTTO and DCE-predicted values for 243 health states resulted in a similar pattern. This supports the use of hybrid models. The predicted value based on the preferred model for the worst health state "33333" was -0.503. Mobility dimension had the most significant impact on the utility decrement, and anxiety/depression had the lowest decrement. Determining a Russian national value set may be considered the first step towards promoting cost-utility analysis use to increase comparability among studies and improve the transferability of healthcare decision-making in Russia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33713323
doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02804-6
pii: 10.1007/s11136-021-02804-6
pmc: PMC8233249
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1997-2007Références
Value Health. 2019 Jan;22(1):23-30
pubmed: 30661630
Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):289-97
pubmed: 19744296
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):466-473
pubmed: 28292492
Value Health Reg Issues. 2019 Sep;19:75-80
pubmed: 31181452
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):1005-13
pubmed: 20825618
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1785-93
pubmed: 25543271
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Nov;21(8):1245-1257
pubmed: 32514643
Value Health. 2018 Nov;21(11):1330-1337
pubmed: 30442281
Med Care. 2004 Sep;42(9):851-9
pubmed: 15319610
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Soc Sci Med. 1997 May;44(10):1519-30
pubmed: 9160441
Qual Life Res. 2021 Mar;30(3):831-840
pubmed: 33237551
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21
pubmed: 21037243
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):375-84
pubmed: 11491197
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):367-75
pubmed: 24477679
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
J Health Econ. 2002 Mar;21(2):271-92
pubmed: 11939242
Med Care. 2017 Jul;55(7):e51-e58
pubmed: 25521503
Health Econ. 2017 Mar;26(3):387-394
pubmed: 26756822
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):413-23
pubmed: 23748906
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Oct 16;1:54
pubmed: 14613568
Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):445-53
pubmed: 24969006
Value Health. 2018 Apr;21(4):456-461
pubmed: 29680103
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):431-42
pubmed: 23975375