IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i2d10.1007_s40258-020-00598-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30

Author

Listed:
  • Virginie Nerich

    (University Hospital
    INSERM, EFS-BFC, UMR1098, University of Franche-Comté)

  • Eva Maria Gamper

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Madeleine King

    (University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Bernhard Holzner

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (UTS Business School University of Technology Sydney (UTS))

  • Georg Kemmler

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

Abstract

Background and objective The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), a widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. It covers ten dimensions: physical, role functioning, social, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea and bowel problems. To allow national health preferences to be reflected, country-specific valuations are being performed through collaboration between the Multi-Attribute Utility Cancer (MAUCa) Consortium and the EORTC. The aim of this study was to determine the utility weights for health states in the French version of the QLU-C10D. Methods Valuations were run in a web-based setting in a general population sample of 1033 adults. Utilities were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). Data were analyzed by conditional logistic regression and mixed logits. Results The sample was representative of the general French population in terms of gender and age. Dimensions with the largest impact on utility weights were, in this order: physical functioning, pain and emotional functioning. The impact on utilities was lower for role functioning, nausea, bowel problems and social functioning. The dimensions of sleep, fatigue and lacking appetite were associated with the smallest utility decrement. Conclusion The results of the present study provide utility weights for the QLU-C10D and offer interesting prospects, as some cancer-specific dimensions also received sizeable utility weights (nausea and bowel problems). In fact, the EQ-5D and the HUI 3 are recommended in France and commonly used for cancer-related CUA; however, both these instruments are generic. The availability of a new cancer-specific utility instrument, such as the QLU-C10D, could improve the quality and the pertinence of future CUA in oncology

Suggested Citation

  • Virginie Nerich & Eva Maria Gamper & Richard Norman & Madeleine King & Bernhard Holzner & Rosalie Viney & Georg Kemmler, 2021. "French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 191-202, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00598-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1
    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/s40258-020-00598-1?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. John Brazier & Simon Dixon, 1995. "The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 255-264, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 19(2)
      by karanshahk2 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-19 06:00:07

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yiyin Cao & Haofei Li & Ling Jie Cheng & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler & David Cella & Hongjuan Yu & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2024. "A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. Simon J Palfreyman & Angela M Tod & John E Brazier & Jonathan A Michaels, 2010. "A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2673-2703, October.
    3. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Simon J Palfreyman & Phil Shackley & John E Brazier, 2010. "Assessing current health‐related quality of life questionnaires administered to patients with venous ulcers: can they be used in economic evaluations?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5‐6), pages 892-897, March.

    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:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00598-1. 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.