IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i2d10.1007_s40273-017-0582-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30

Author

Listed:
  • Madeleine T. King

    (University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group, Quality of Life Office
    University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine, Sydney Medical School)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney (UTS))

  • A. Simon Pickard

    (University of Illinois at Chicago)

  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Neil K. Aaronson

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute)

  • John E. Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • David Cella

    (Northwestern University)

  • Daniel S. J. Costa

    (University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group, Quality of Life Office
    University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine, Sydney Medical School)

  • Peter M. Fayers

    (University of Aberdeen
    Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

  • Georg Kemmler

    (Innsbruck Medical University)

  • Helen McTaggart-Cowen

    (Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and British Columbia Cancer Agency)

  • Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber

    (University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group, Quality of Life Office
    University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine, Sydney Medical School)

  • Stuart Peacock

    (Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and British Columbia Cancer Agency)

  • Deborah J. Street

    (University of Technology Sydney (UTS))

  • Tracey A. Young

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

Abstract

Background The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required. Objective The aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D. Methods An Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy. Results A total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death. Conclusions This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Donna Rowen & Neil K. Aaronson & John E. Brazier & David Cella & Daniel S. J. Costa & Peter M. Fayers & Georg Kemmler & Helen McTaggart-Cowen & R, 2018. "Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 225-238, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0582-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 33-41, December.
    2. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    2. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Moustapha Touré & Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    2. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    4. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & John Brazier, 2021. "Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia Using an International Protocol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1151-1162, October.
    5. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(8), pages 805-814, August.
    6. Knott, Rachel J. & Lorgelly, Paula K. & Black, Nicole & Hollingsworth, Bruce, 2017. "Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 247-255.
    7. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    8. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    9. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    10. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.
    11. Bram Roudijk & A. Rogier T. Donders & Peep F.M. Stalmeier, 2018. "Setting Dead at Zero: Applying Scale Properties to the QALY Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 627-634, August.
    12. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tessa Peasgood & Suzy Paisley, 2017. "The Identification, Review and Synthesis of Health State Utility Values from the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-55, December.
    13. Donna Rowen & Alexander Labeit & Katherine Stevens & Jackie Elliott & Brendan Mulhern & Jill Carlton & Hasan Basarir & John Brazier, 2018. "Estimating a Preference-Based Single Index Measuring the Quality-of-Life Impact of Self-Management for Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 699-707, August.
    14. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    16. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration to Model EQ-5D-5L Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 285-297, April.
    18. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Paula Lorgelly & Emily Lancsar & Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 439-451, April.
    19. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.
    20. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0582-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.