IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i1p64-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating a Preference-Based Value Set for the Mental Health Quality of Life Questionnaire (MHQoL)

Author

Listed:
  • Frédérique C. W. van Krugten

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam (ESHPM), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Marcel F. Jonker

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam (ESHPM), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Sebastian F. W. Himmler

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam (ESHPM), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam (ESHPM), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Werner B. F. Brouwer

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam (ESHPM), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Background Health economic evaluations using common health-related quality of life measures may fall short in adequately measuring and valuing the benefits of mental health care interventions. The Mental Health Quality of Life questionnaire (MHQoL) is a standardized, self-administered mental health–related quality of life instrument covering 7 dimensions known to be relevant across and valued highly by people with mental health problems. The aim of this study was to derive a Dutch value set for the MHQoL to facilitate its use in cost-utility analyses. Methods The value set was estimated using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with duration that accommodated nonlinear time preferences. The DCE was embedded in a web-based self-complete survey and administered to a representative sample ( N  = 1,308) of the Dutch adult population. The matched pairwise choice tasks were created using a Bayesian heterogeneous D-efficient design. The overall DCE design comprised 10 different subdesigns, with each subdesign containing 15 matched pairwise choice tasks. Each participant was asked to complete 1 of the subdesigns to which they were randomly assigned. Results The obtained coefficients indicated that “physical health,†“mood,†and “relationships†were the most important dimensions. All coefficients were in the expected direction and reflected the monotonic structure of the MHQoL, except for level 2 of the dimension “future.†The predicted values for the MHQoL ranged from −0.741 for the worst state to 1 for the best state. Conclusions This study derived a Dutch value set for the recently introduced MHQoL. This value set allows for the generation of an index value for all MHQoL states on a QALY scale and may hence be used in Dutch cost-utility analyses of mental healthcare interventions. Highlights A discrete choice experiment was used to derive a Dutch value set for the MHQoL. This allows the use of the MHQoL in Dutch cost-utility analyses. The dimensions physical health, mood, and relationships were the most important. The utility values range from −0.741 for the worst state to 1 for the best state.

Suggested Citation

  • Frédérique C. W. van Krugten & Marcel F. Jonker & Sebastian F. W. Himmler & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2024. "Estimating a Preference-Based Value Set for the Mental Health Quality of Life Questionnaire (MHQoL)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 64-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:64-75
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231208645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231208645
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231208645?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stöckel, Jannis & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2023. "Adaptation in life satisfaction and self-assessed health to disability - Evidence from the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    2. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    3. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.
    4. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    5. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    6. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    7. Ruixuan Jiang & Eleanor Pullenayegum & James W. Shaw & Axel Mühlbacher & Todd A. Lee & Surrey Walton & Thomas Kohlmann & Richard Norman & A. Simon Pickard, 2023. "Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(6), pages 667-679, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Bram Roudijk & A. Rogier T. Donders & Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2019. "Cultural Values: Can They Explain Differences in Health Utilities between Countries?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 605-616, July.
    10. Himmler, Sebastian & Jonker, Marcel & van Krugten, Frédérique & Hackert, Mariska & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "Estimating an anchored utility tariff for the well-being of older people measure (WOOP) for the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).

    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:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:64-75. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.