IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i3p1037-d317371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population

Author

Listed:
  • Samer A. Kharroubi

    (Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon
    School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK)

  • Yara Beyh

    (Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon)

  • Marwa Diab El Harake

    (Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon)

  • Dalia Dawoud

    (Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo 11562, Egypt)

  • Donna Rowen

    (School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK)

  • John Brazier

    (School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK)

Abstract

Objectives: The SF-6D is a preference-based measure of health developed to generate utility values from the SF-36. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of using the standard gamble (SG) technique to generate preference-based values for the Arabic version of SF-6D in a Lebanese population. Methods: The SF-6D was translated into Arabic using forward and backward translations. Forty-nine states defined by the SF-6D were selected using an orthogonal design and grouped into seven sets. A gender-occupation stratified sample of 126 Lebanese adults from the American University of Beirut were recruited to value seven states and the pits using SG. The sample size is appropriate for a pilot study, but smaller than the sample required for a full valuation study. Both interviewers and interviewees reported their understanding and effort levels in the SG tasks. Mean and individual level multivariate regression models were fitted to estimate preference weights for all SF-6D states. The models were compared with those estimated in the UK. Results: Interviewers reported few problems in completing SG tasks (0.8% with a lot of problems) and good respondent understanding (5.6% with little effort and concentration), and 25% of respondents reported the SG task was difficult. A total of 992 SG valuations were useable for econometric modeling. There was no significant change in the test–retest values from 21 subjects. The mean absolute errors in the mean and individual level models were 0.036 and 0.050, respectively, both of which were lower than the UK results. The random effects model adequately predicts the SG values, with the worst state having a value of 0.322 compared to 0.271 in the UK. Conclusion: This pilot confirmed that it was feasible and acceptable to generate preference values with the SG method for the Arabic SF-6D in a Lebanese population. However, further work is needed to extend this to a more representative population, and to explore why no utility values below zero were observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:1037-:d:317371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/1037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/1037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & John E. Brazier, 2005. "Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(5), pages 879-895, November.
    3. William J Furlong & David H. Feeny & George W. Torrance & Ronald D. Barr, 2001. "The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) System for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Clinical Studies," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2001-02, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    4. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    5. Donald L. Patrick & Helene E. Starks & Kevin C. Cain & Richard F. Uhlmann & Robert A. Pearlman, 1994. "Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-18, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    8. Kharroubi, Samer A. & Brazier, John E. & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 597-612, May.
    9. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    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. Samer A. Kharroubi, 2021. "Modeling SF-6D Health Utilities: Is Bayesian Approach Appropriate?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Hani Dimassi & Soumana C. Nasser & Aline Issa & Sarine S. Adrian & Bassima Hazimeh, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Health Conditions in Lebanese Community Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.

    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. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh, 2021. "Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 773-788, July.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    3. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    4. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    5. O'Hagan, A & Brazier, JE & Kharroubi, SA, 2007. "A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method," MPRA Paper 29806, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Samer A. Kharroubi, 2021. "Modeling SF-6D Health Utilities: Is Bayesian Approach Appropriate?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Méndez, Ildefonso & Abellán Perpiñán, Jose M. & Sánchez Martínez, Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2011. "Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: An illustration using the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1280-1292.
    9. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Musal, R. Muzaffer & Soyer, Refik & McCabe, Christopher & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2012. "Estimating the population utility function: A parametric Bayesian approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 538-547.
    11. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    12. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    13. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    14. W. Greiner & C. Claes & J. J. V. Busschbach & J.-M. Schulenburg, 2005. "Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 124-130, June.
    15. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    16. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    17. Kharroubi, Samer A. & Brazier, John E. & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 597-612, May.
    18. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Roisin Adams & Cathal Walsh & Douglas Veale & Barry Bresnihan & Oliver FitzGerald & Michael Barry, 2010. "Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 477-487, June.
    20. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:1037-:d:317371. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.