IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i10d10.1007_s40273-021-01043-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia Using an International Protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background The SF-6Dv2 is an updated version of the SF-6D, with improved consistency and dimension descriptors, and value sets are required. The aim of this study was to estimate an SF-6Dv2 value set for Australia using an international protocol, while secondary aims were to compare Australian and UK values and to understand heterogeneity. Methods The study design was based on the SF-6Dv2 valuation protocol, which involved the administration of two different discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. The first task presented pairs of SF-6Dv2 health states with duration (Design 1), and the second task presented triplets that appended ‘immediate death’ to the health state pairs (Design 2). Respondents completed 12 choice sets online (10 from Design 1; 2 from Design 2). Value sets were estimated for Design 1 separately and combining Designs 1 and 2 using a variety of logit model specifications. Value set characteristics were compared descriptively with the UK model. Results The sample included 3001 Australians. A range of ordered and consistent models were estimated. The models only including Design 1 data resulted in a relatively wider utility range. The value range was reduced by an interaction added when the health state included a dimension with a severe level. The model matched with the UK value set resulted in a larger utility range and consistent ordering of the most important dimensions. Conclusion The model including the Design 1 data and moderating interaction was chosen for the Australian value set. This allows the SF-6Dv2 to be used in health technology assessment decision making in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & John Brazier, 2021. "Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia Using an International Protocol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1151-1162, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01043-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01043-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01043-4
    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/s40273-021-01043-4?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. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    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. Sullivan, Trudy & McCarty, Georgia & Ombler, Franz & Turner, Robin & Mulhern, Brendan & Hansen, Paul, 2024. "Creating an SF-6Dv2 social value set for New Zealand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    2. Jorge-Eduardo Martínez-Pérez & José-María Abellán-Perpiñán & Fernando-Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & Juan-José Ruiz-López, 2024. "A Spanish value set for the SF-6D based on the SF-12 v1," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1333-1343, November.

    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. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    2. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    6. Rowen, Donna & Mukuria, Clara & Bray, Nathan & Carlton, Jill & Longworth, Louise & Meads, David & O'Neill, Ciaran & Shah, Koonal & Yang, Yaling, 2022. "Assessing the comparative feasibility, acceptability and equivalence of videoconference interviews and face-to-face interviews using the time trade-off technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(8), pages 805-814, August.
    9. Knott, Rachel J. & Lorgelly, Paula K. & Black, Nicole & Hollingsworth, Bruce, 2017. "Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 247-255.
    10. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    11. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    12. Mónica Hernández‐Alava & Stephen Pudney, 2022. "Mapping between EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L: A survey experiment on the validity of multi‐instrument data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 923-939, June.
    13. John Mullahy, 2018. "Treatment Effects with Multiple Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 25307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Dhfer Alshayban & Royes Joseph, 2020. "Health-related quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    15. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    16. Ole Marten & Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Implausible States: Prevalence of EQ-5D-5L States in the General Population and Its Effect on Health State Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 735-745, August.
    17. 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).
    18. Gamze Bayin Donar & Mehmet Top, 2020. "A conceptual framework of quality of life in chronic kidney disease in Turkey: A patient‐focused approach," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 1335-1350, November.
    19. Admassu N. Lamu, 2020. "Does linear equating improve prediction in mapping? Crosswalking MacNew onto EQ-5D-5L value sets," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 903-915, August.
    20. Héctor Pifarré i Arolas & Christian Dudel, 2019. "An Ordinal Measure of Population Health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 1219-1243, June.

    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:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01043-4. 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.