IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i5d10.1007_s40273-021-01002-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study in Egypt

Author

Listed:
  • Sahar A. Al Shabasy

    (Cairo University)

  • Maggie M. Abbassi

    (Cairo University)

  • Aureliano Paolo Finch

    (EuroQol Group Office)

  • Darrin Baines

    (Bournemouth University)

  • Samar F. Farid

    (Cairo University)

Abstract

Introduction No value sets exist for either the EQ-5D-3L or the EQ-5D-5L in Egypt, despite local pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommending the use of the EQ-5D to derive utility. Most published Egyptian economic evaluation studies have used utility values from other published studies and systematic reviews. Objective Our objective was to develop an Egyptian EQ-5D-5L value set using the international EuroQol standardized protocol (EQ-VT-2.1). Methods Adult Egyptian participants were recruited from public places using multi-stratified quota sampling based on age, sex, and geographical distribution. Two elicitation techniques were applied: the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete-choice experiments (DCEs). Before actual data collection, interviewers’ performance was assessed in a pilot phase. Data were modelled using generalized least square, Tobit, heteroskedastic, logit, and hybrid models, and the best fitting model was selected based on the value range between observed and predicted values, logical consistency of the parameters, significance level, and prediction accuracy. Results A total of 1378 interviews were conducted, of which 188 were excluded because they were incomplete or did not comply with protocol, 216 were pilot interviews, and 974 were included in the final analysis. The heteroskedastic model (model 4) based on the cTTO data was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from − 0.93 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for full health (11111), with 1136 (36.3%) of all predicted health states being worse than dead. Mobility had the largest impact on health state preference values. Conclusion This is the first value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on social preferences obtained from a nationally representative sample in Egypt or any Arabic-speaking country. The value set can be used as a scoring system for economic evaluations and to improve the quality of health technology assessment in the Egyptian healthcare system.

Suggested Citation

  • Sahar A. Al Shabasy & Maggie M. Abbassi & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Darrin Baines & Samar F. Farid, 2021. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: The EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study in Egypt," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 549-561, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01002-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01002-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01002-z
    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/s40273-021-01002-z?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. Eliza L. Y. Wong & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Annie W. L. Cheung & Amy Y. K. Wong & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2018. "Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 235-247, April.
    2. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, 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: PharmacoEconomics 39(5)
      by Don Husereau in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-07-16 06:00:06

    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. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    2. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    3. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    4. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    6. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    7. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    8. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    10. Ariel Beresniak & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Jean Auray & Alain Wever & Jean-Claude Praet & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Danielle Dupont & Michel Lamure & Gerard Duru, 2015. "Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 61-69, January.
    11. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    12. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    13. Afschin Gandjour, 2008. "Incorporating feelings related to the uncertainty about future health in utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(10), pages 1207-1213, October.
    14. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    15. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    16. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon & Stefan A. Lipman, 2020. "A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 465-473, April.
    17. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    18. Craig, Benjamin M. & Oppe, Mark, 2010. "From a different angle: A novel approach to health valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 169-174, January.
    19. Matthijs Versteegh, 2016. "Impact on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of Using Alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov Model for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1133-1144, November.
    20. Arthur Attema & Werner Brouwer, 2012. "The way that you do it? An elaborate test of procedural invariance of TTO, using a choice-based design," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 491-500, August.

    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:5:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01002-z. 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.