Conceptual Framework for Optimised Proxy Value Set Selection Through Supra-National Value Set Development for the EQ-5D Instruments.


Journal

PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2022
Historique:
accepted: 11 09 2022
pubmed: 7 10 2022
medline: 23 11 2022
entrez: 6 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Preference differences between countries and populations justify the use of country-specific value sets for the EQ-5D instruments. There are no clear criteria based on which the selection of value sets for countries without a national value set should be made. As part of the European PECUNIA project, this study aimed to identify factors contributing to differences in preference-based valuations and develop supra-national value sets for homogenous country clusters in Europe. A literature review was conducted to identify factors relevant to variations in the EQ-5D-3L/5L health state valuations across countries. Factors fulfilling the pre-specified criteria of validity, reliability, international feasibility and comparability were used to group 27 European Union member states, the European Free Trade Association countries and the UK. Clusters of countries were developed based on the frequency of their appearance in the same grouping. The supra-national value sets were estimated for these clusters from the coefficients of existing published valuation studies using the ordinary least-squares model. Ten factors were identified from 69 studies. From these, five grouping variables: (1) culture and religion; (2) linguistics; (3) healthcare system typology; (4) healthcare system financing; and (5) sociodemographic aspects were derived to define the groups of homogenous countries. Frequency-based grouping revealed five cohesive clusters: English-speaking, Nordic, Central-Western, Southern and Eastern European. European countries were clustered considering variables that may relate to differences in health state valuations. Supra-national value sets provide optimised proxy value set selection in the lack of a national value set and/or for regional decision making.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Preference differences between countries and populations justify the use of country-specific value sets for the EQ-5D instruments. There are no clear criteria based on which the selection of value sets for countries without a national value set should be made. As part of the European PECUNIA project, this study aimed to identify factors contributing to differences in preference-based valuations and develop supra-national value sets for homogenous country clusters in Europe.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted to identify factors relevant to variations in the EQ-5D-3L/5L health state valuations across countries. Factors fulfilling the pre-specified criteria of validity, reliability, international feasibility and comparability were used to group 27 European Union member states, the European Free Trade Association countries and the UK. Clusters of countries were developed based on the frequency of their appearance in the same grouping. The supra-national value sets were estimated for these clusters from the coefficients of existing published valuation studies using the ordinary least-squares model.
RESULTS
Ten factors were identified from 69 studies. From these, five grouping variables: (1) culture and religion; (2) linguistics; (3) healthcare system typology; (4) healthcare system financing; and (5) sociodemographic aspects were derived to define the groups of homogenous countries. Frequency-based grouping revealed five cohesive clusters: English-speaking, Nordic, Central-Western, Southern and Eastern European.
CONCLUSIONS
European countries were clustered considering variables that may relate to differences in health state valuations. Supra-national value sets provide optimised proxy value set selection in the lack of a national value set and/or for regional decision making.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36201130
doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01194-y
pii: 10.1007/s40273-022-01194-y
pmc: PMC9534733
doi:

Types de publication

Review Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Pagination

1221-1234

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Value Health. 2009 Jul-Aug;12(5):750-8
pubmed: 19490564
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Oct;68(10):1195-204
pubmed: 26032149
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Apr;38(4):413-425
pubmed: 31912325
Int J Qual Health Care. 2015 Apr;27(2):137-46
pubmed: 25758443
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21
pubmed: 21037243
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Feb;14(1):57-66
pubmed: 21935715
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 May;49(5):551-64
pubmed: 8636729
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Dec;35(Suppl 1):11-19
pubmed: 29052162
Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Apr;39(4):463-471
pubmed: 33565048
Value Health. 2018 May;21(5):596-604
pubmed: 29753358
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 11;18(14):
pubmed: 34299864
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;292:114519
pubmed: 34736804
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 11;10(6):e034683
pubmed: 32532768
Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1170-7
pubmed: 18489516
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):466-473
pubmed: 28292492
Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 May 23;:
pubmed: 35604633
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767-79
pubmed: 19757870
Value Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(5):814-22
pubmed: 23947975
Eur Stroke J. 2017 Mar;2(1):70-76
pubmed: 30009266
Zdr Varst. 2019 Dec 13;59(1):8-17
pubmed: 32952698
Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1235-1245
pubmed: 32940242
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1194-200
pubmed: 19695009
Qual Life Res. 2013 Oct;22(8):2237-43
pubmed: 23266797
Qual Life Res. 2016 Dec;25(12):2997-3008
pubmed: 27444779
Value Health. 2022 May;25(5):835-843
pubmed: 35500952
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019 Aug;19(4):445-451
pubmed: 30523723
Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):141-54
pubmed: 8733106
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Mar;54(6):919-29
pubmed: 11996025
Qual Life Res. 2004 Sep;13(7):1265-77
pubmed: 15473505
Qual Life Res. 2016 Apr;25(4):979-86
pubmed: 26346987
Qual Life Res. 2009 Dec;18(10):1377-85
pubmed: 19830593
Qual Life Res. 2017 Sep;26(9):2489-2496
pubmed: 28484914
Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr;35(3):276-91
pubmed: 25159172
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Jun 23;9(1):17
pubmed: 21699675
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-16
pubmed: 11206949
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Jun;20(Suppl 1):119-132
pubmed: 31104218
Med Decis Making. 2019 Jul;39(5):605-616
pubmed: 31257997
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 3;18(1):511
pubmed: 29970085
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jun;24(6):1565-74
pubmed: 25394895
Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):221-8
pubmed: 15725978
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Aug;14(4):697-702
pubmed: 22941035
Scand J Public Health. 2009 Jul;37(5):459-66
pubmed: 19411320
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 May;60(5):479-90
pubmed: 17419959
Curr Oncol. 2015 Dec;22(6):e443-52
pubmed: 26715881
Osteoporos Int. 2018 Mar;29(3):557-566
pubmed: 29230511
Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26(12):1524-1533
pubmed: 27747973
Med Decis Making. 2008 Jan-Feb;28(1):12-20
pubmed: 18263558
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jun;36(6):663-674
pubmed: 29460066
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1679-85
pubmed: 26659899
Value Health Reg Issues. 2015 Sep;7:34-41
pubmed: 29698150
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Jul;19(4):579-591
pubmed: 33527304
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):413-23
pubmed: 23748906
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Nov;36(11):1345-1353
pubmed: 30051267
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Sep;37(9):1165-1176
pubmed: 31161586
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jul 31;16(1):152
pubmed: 30064460
Qual Life Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3163-3175
pubmed: 31201730
Qual Life Res. 2017 Aug;26(8):2067-2078
pubmed: 28343350
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52
pubmed: 27325326
Health Policy. 2013 Dec;113(3):258-69
pubmed: 24095274
Qual Life Res. 2010 Oct;19(8):1145-54
pubmed: 20496167
Med Decis Making. 2014 Jan;34(1):8-20
pubmed: 23525701
Eur J Health Econ. 2015 Nov;16(8):857-63
pubmed: 25260384
Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Jun;6(2):124-30
pubmed: 19787848
Health Econ. 2006 Oct;15(10):1121-32
pubmed: 16786549
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Jun 01;16:19
pubmed: 29881328
BMC Res Notes. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):18
pubmed: 30642397
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 May 1;31(4):307-311
pubmed: 30052971
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Feb;246:112801
pubmed: 31972377

Auteurs

Agata Łaszewska (A)

Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria. agata.laszewska@meduniwien.ac.at.

Ayesha Sajjad (A)

Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Jan Busschbach (J)

Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Judit Simon (J)

Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen (L)

Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH