COVID-19 and EQ-5D-5L health state valuation.
COVID-19
EQ-5D-5L
Health shock
Valuation
Visual analogue scale
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Feb 2023
23 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
08
07
2022
accepted:
23
01
2023
entrez:
22
2
2023
pubmed:
23
2
2023
medline:
23
2
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We investigate whether and how general population health state values were influenced by the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes could have important implications, as general population values are used in health resource allocation. In Spring 2020, participants in a UK general population survey rated 2 EQ-5D-5L states, 11111 and 55555, as well as dead, using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 100 = best imaginable health to 0 = worst imaginable health. Participants answered questions about their pandemic experiences, including COVID-19's effect on their health and quality of life, and their subjective risk/worry about infection. VAS ratings for 55555 were transformed to the full health = 1, dead = 0 scale. Tobit models were used to analyse VAS responses, as well as multinomial propensity score matching (MNPS) to create samples balanced according to participant characteristics. Of 3021 respondents, 2599 were used for analysis. There were statistically significant, but complex associations between experiences of COVID-19 and VAS ratings. For example, in the MNPS analysis, greater subjective risk of infection implied higher VAS ratings for dead, yet worry about infection implied lower ratings. In the Tobit analysis, people whose health was affected by COVID-19 rated 55555 higher, whether the effect on health was positive or negative. The results complement previous findings that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted EQ-5D-5L health state valuation, and different aspects of the pandemic had different effects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We investigate whether and how general population health state values were influenced by the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes could have important implications, as general population values are used in health resource allocation.
DATA
METHODS
In Spring 2020, participants in a UK general population survey rated 2 EQ-5D-5L states, 11111 and 55555, as well as dead, using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 100 = best imaginable health to 0 = worst imaginable health. Participants answered questions about their pandemic experiences, including COVID-19's effect on their health and quality of life, and their subjective risk/worry about infection.
ANALYSIS
METHODS
VAS ratings for 55555 were transformed to the full health = 1, dead = 0 scale. Tobit models were used to analyse VAS responses, as well as multinomial propensity score matching (MNPS) to create samples balanced according to participant characteristics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 3021 respondents, 2599 were used for analysis. There were statistically significant, but complex associations between experiences of COVID-19 and VAS ratings. For example, in the MNPS analysis, greater subjective risk of infection implied higher VAS ratings for dead, yet worry about infection implied lower ratings. In the Tobit analysis, people whose health was affected by COVID-19 rated 55555 higher, whether the effect on health was positive or negative.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results complement previous findings that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted EQ-5D-5L health state valuation, and different aspects of the pandemic had different effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36814039
doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01569-8
pii: 10.1007/s10198-023-01569-8
pmc: PMC9946870
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : EuroQol Research Foundation
ID : 289-RA
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022;20(1):380-386
pubmed: 32837440
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 3;15(11):e0241742
pubmed: 33141836
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22
pubmed: 28833869
Health Econ. 2021 Sep;30(10):2547-2560
pubmed: 34302310
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Oct;34(10):993-1004
pubmed: 27084198
Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Mar;75(3):e13674
pubmed: 32790942
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
BMJ. 2021 Feb 9;372:n339
pubmed: 33563590
Br J Health Psychol. 2022 Nov;27(4):1354-1381
pubmed: 35642867
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jan;27(1):89-95
pubmed: 32979574
Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2020 Jun 13;4(FI1):1-6
pubmed: 33089042
Med Decis Making. 2020 Apr;40(3):251-253
pubmed: 32428432
Infection. 2021 Feb;49(1):15-28
pubmed: 32860214
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jan;22(1):e6
pubmed: 33341123
BMJ. 2021 Jan 29;372:n288
pubmed: 33514508
Nat Commun. 2021 Oct 29;12(1):6238
pubmed: 34716349
BMJ. 2020 Aug 11;370:m3026
pubmed: 32784198
J Public Health (Oxf). 2020 Nov 23;42(4):712-716
pubmed: 32930797
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Aug;21(8):1035-1044
pubmed: 32702311
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 May 5;117(18):9696-9698
pubmed: 32300018
BMJ. 2020 Mar 26;368:m1198
pubmed: 32217618
Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Jul;20(7):407
pubmed: 32461673
Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-39
pubmed: 32298803
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Jul;21(5):787-800
pubmed: 32180068
Curr Psychol. 2022;41(1):492-504
pubmed: 33846675
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar;22(3):309-320
pubmed: 33493433
Adv Ther. 2021 Apr;38(4):1811-1831
pubmed: 33650025
Lancet. 2021 May 22;397(10288):2012-2022
pubmed: 33965068
BMJ. 2020 Jun 4;369:m2238
pubmed: 32499233
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Jul;21(7):915-918
pubmed: 32674819
BMJ. 2020 Nov 19;371:m4438
pubmed: 33214143
BMJ. 2021 Oct 8;375:n2471
pubmed: 34625407