IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i9p4428-d540838.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Moustapha Touré

    (Department of Economics, Business School, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada
    Centre de Recherche de l’IUSMM, CIUSSS de l’Est de L’île de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada)

  • Christian R. C. Kouakou

    (Department of Economics, Business School, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada
    Centre de Recherche de l’IUSMM, CIUSSS de l’Est de L’île de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada)

  • Thomas G. Poder

    (Centre de Recherche de l’IUSMM, CIUSSS de l’Est de L’île de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada
    Department of Management, Evaluation and Health Policy, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada)

Abstract

Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions’ and levels’ selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4428-:d:540838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4428/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4428/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    3. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    4. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2015. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 1013-1028, October.
    5. Suzanne Slocum-Gori & Bruno Zumbo, 2011. "Assessing the Unidimensionality of Psychological Scales: Using Multiple Criteria from Factor Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 443-461, July.
    6. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    7. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    8. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    9. 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.
    10. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    11. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    12. John Brazier & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Jennifer Roberts & Martin Brown & Tara Symonds & Con Kelleher, 2008. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Index from a Condition-Specific Measure: The King's Health Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, January.
    13. Andrea Saltelli, 2002. "Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 579-590, 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. Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    4. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    5. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    6. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    7. Paula K. Lorgelly & Kenny D. Lawson & Elisabeth A.L. Fenwick & Andrew H. Briggs, 2010. "Outcome Measurement in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: a Role for the Capability Approach?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    12. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    13. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    14. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    15. Ning Gu & Chris Bell & Marc Botteman & Xiang Ji & John Carter & Ben Hout, 2012. "Estimating Preference-Based EQ-5D Health State Utilities or Item Responses from Neuropathic Pain Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 185-197, September.
    16. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    18. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    19. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    20. Wijnen, Ben F.M. & Mosweu, Iris & Majoie, Marian H.J.M. & Ridsdale, Leone & de Kinderen, Reina J.A. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & McCrone, Paul, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106170, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4428-:d:540838. 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.