IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i9d10.1007_s10198-021-01324-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan S. McClure

    (University of Alberta
    University of Alberta)

  • Mike Paulden

    (University of Alberta)

  • Arto Ohinmaa

    (University of Alberta
    University of Alberta)

  • Jeffrey A. Johnson

    (University of Alberta
    University of Alberta)

Abstract

Background We propose a modified quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculation that aims to be consistent with guidance for interpreting change in patient-reported outcomes. This calculation incorporates the minimally important difference (MID) in generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQL) change scores to reflect what might be considered meaningful HRQL improvement/deterioration. In doing so, we review common issues in QALY calculations such as adjustment for baseline scores and standardizing for between-group differences. Methods Using EQ-5D-5L outcome data from the Alberta TEAMCare-Primary Care Network trial in the management of depression for patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 98), this study compared results from different QALY calculation methods to investigate the impact of (i) adjusting for baseline HRQL score, (ii) standardizing between-group differences at baseline, and (iii) adjusting for ‘meaningful’ HRQL changes. The following QALY calculation methods are examined: area under curve (QALY-AUC), change from baseline (QALY-CFB), regression modelling (QALY-R), and incorporating an MID for HRQL changes from baseline (QALY-MID). Results The incremental QALY-AUC estimate favoured the Collaborative Care group (0.031) while the incremental QALY-CFB (−0.028) estimate favoured Enhanced Care. Adjusting for meaningful HRQL changes resulted in a crude incremental QALY-MID of −0.023; however, after adjusting for between-group differences at baseline, QALY-R and adjusted incremental QALY-MID estimates were −0.007 and −0.001, respectively. In addition, recursive regression analyses showed that very low baseline HRQL scores impact incremental QALY estimates. Conclusions Uncertainty in incremental QALY estimates reflects uncertainty in the value of small within-individual change as well as the impact of small differences between groups at baseline. Applying a responder-definition approach yielded crude and adjusted QALY-MID estimates that were more in favour of Collaborative Care than QALY-CFB and QALY-R estimates, respectively, suggesting that ambiguous small changes in HRQL scores have the potential to influence QALY outcomes used in economic or non-economic applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan S. McClure & Mike Paulden & Arto Ohinmaa & Jeffrey A. Johnson, 2021. "Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1441-1451, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01324-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01324-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01324-x
    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/s10198-021-01324-x?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. Rachael Hunter & Gianluca Baio & Thomas Butt & Stephen Morris & Jeff Round & Nick Freemantle, 2015. "An Educational Review of the Statistical Issues in Analysing Utility Data for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 355-366, April.
    2. MacKillop, Eleanor & Sheard, Sally, 2018. "Quantifying life: Understanding the history of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 359-366.
    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. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    5. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    5. Ângela Jornada Ben & Johanna M. Dongen & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Mohamed El Alili & Judith E. Bosmans, 2023. "To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1253-1270, November.
    6. Paul Schneider & Nancy Devlin & Ben van Hout & John Brazier, 2024. "Exploring health preference heterogeneity in the UK: Using the online elicitation of personal utility functions approach to construct EQ‐5D‐5L value functions on societal, group and individual level," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 894-910, May.
    7. Michela Meregaglia & Elena Nicod & Michael Drummond, 2023. "The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1151-1216, September.
    8. 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).
    9. Kristina Burström & Fitsum Sebsibe Teni & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Reiner Leidl & Gert Helgesson & Ola Rolfson & Martin Henriksson, 2020. "Experience-Based Swedish TTO and VAS Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(8), pages 839-856, August.
    10. Rachael Maree Hunter & Rob Anderson & Tim Kirkpatrick & Charlotte Lennox & Fiona Warren & Rod S. Taylor & Jenny Shaw & Mark Haddad & Alex Stirzaker & Mike Maguire & Richard Byng, 2022. "Economic evaluation of a complex intervention (Engager) for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: a cost-utility and cost-consequences analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    11. Satar Rezaei & Abraha Woldemichael & Sina Ahmadi & Amjad Mohamadi Bolbanabad & Farman Zahir Abdullah & Bakhtiar Piroozi, 2021. "Comparing the properties of the EQ‐5D‐5L and EQ‐5D‐3L in general population in Iran," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1613-1625, September.
    12. Joseph Carrello & Alison Hayes & Anagha Killedar & Amy Huben & Louise A. Baur & Stavros Petrou & Thomas Lung, 2021. "Utility Decrements Associated with Adult Overweight and Obesity in Australia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 503-519, May.
    13. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tracey Young, 2017. "Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-75, December.
    14. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Alexina J. Mason & Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & James R. Carpenter, 2018. "A Bayesian framework for health economic evaluation in studies with missing data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1670-1683, November.
    18. 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).
    19. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Quality-adjusted life year; Health-related quality of life; Minimally important difference; Type 2 diabetes; Depression;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01324-x. 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.