IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i2d10.1007_s40273-022-01190-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Fanni Rencz

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Gábor Ruzsa

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Eötvös Loránd University)

  • Alex Bató

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Semmelweis University)

  • Zhihao Yang

    (Guizhou Medical University)

  • Aureliano Paolo Finch

    (EuroQol Office, EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Valentin Brodszky

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Background The Hungarian health technology assessment guidelines recommend the use of the EuroQol instrument family in quality-adjusted life-year calculations. However, no national value set exists for the EQ-5D-Y-3L or any other youth-specific instrument. Objective This study aims to develop a national value set of the EQ-5D-Y-3L for Hungary based on preferences of the general adult population. Methods This study followed the international valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Two independent samples, representative of the Hungarian general adult population in terms of age and sex were recruited to complete online discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks and composite time trade-off (cTTO) tasks by computer-assisted personal interviews. Adults valued hypothetical EQ-5D-Y-3L health states considering the health of a 10-year-old child. DCE data were modelled using a mixed logit model with random-correlated coefficients. Latent DCE utility estimates were mapped onto mean observed cTTO utilities using ordinary least squares regression. Results Overall, 996 and 200 respondents completed the DCE and cTTO surveys, respectively. For each domain, the value set resulted in larger utility decrements with more severe response levels. The relative importance of domains by level 3 coefficients was as follows: having pain or discomfort > feeling worried, sad or unhappy > mobility > doing usual activities > looking after myself. Overall, 12.3% of all health states had negative utilities in the value set, with the worst health state having the lowest predicted utility of − 0.485. Conclusion This study developed a national value set of the EQ-5D-Y-3L for Hungary. The value set enables to evaluate the cost utility of health technologies for children and adolescents based on societal preferences in Hungary.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanni Rencz & Gábor Ruzsa & Alex Bató & Zhihao Yang & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Valentin Brodszky, 2022. "Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 205-215, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01190-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01190-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01190-2
    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/s40273-022-01190-2?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. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    2. Simone Kreimeier & David Mott & Kristina Ludwig & Wolfgang Greiner, 2022. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 217-229, December.
    3. Mimmi Åström & Ola Rolfson & Kristina Burström, 2022. "Exploring EQ-5D-Y-3L Experience-Based VAS Values Derived Among Adolescents," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 383-393, May.
    4. Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Katherine Stevens & Sandra Bradley & Leah Couzner & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Rachel Roberts & Elisabeth Huynh & Terry Flynn, 2015. "Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 485-492, October.
    5. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Ben Van Hout, 2015. "A Comparison of Methods for Converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 328-340, April.
    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. Zhihao Yang & Jie Jiang & Pei Wang & Xuejing Jin & Jing Wu & Yu Fang & Da Feng & Xiaoyu Xi & Shunping Li & Mingxia Jing & Bin Zheng & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2022. "Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for China," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-155, December.
    2. Jonathan L. Nazari & A. Simon Pickard & Ning Yan Gu, 2022. "Findings from a Roundtable Discussion with US Stakeholders on Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 139-146, December.
    3. David J. Mott & Nancy J. Devlin & Simone Kreimeier & Richard Norman & Koonal K. Shah & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2022. "Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 129-137, December.
    4. Powell, Philip A. & Rowen, Donna & Keetharuth, Anju & Mukuria, Clara & Shah, Koonal, 2024. "Who should value children's health and how? An international Delphi study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    5. Nancy Devlin & Bram Roudijk & Rosalie Viney & Elly Stolk, 2022. "EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Sets, Valuation Methods and Conceptual Questions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 123-127, December.
    6. Sarah Dewilde & Bram Roudijk & Nafthali H. Tollenaar & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2022. "An EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Belgium," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 169-180, 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. Joseph Kwon & Louise Freijser & Elisabeth Huynh & Martin Howell & Gang Chen & Kamran Khan & Shahd Daher & Nia Roberts & Conrad Harrison & Sarah Smith & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Emily Lancsar & , 2022. "Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 379-431, April.
    2. Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Sanjeewa Kularatna & Joshua Byrnes & Brendan Mulhern & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2023. "Valuing the Dental Caries Utility Index in Australia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 901-913, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    5. Velasco Garrido, Marcial & Gerhardus, Ansgar & Røttingen, John-Arne & Busse, Reinhard, 2010. "Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 196-202, March.
    6. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    7. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    8. Francesca Iandolo & Pietro Vito & Irene Fulco & Francesca Loia, 2018. "From Health Technology Assessment to Health Technology Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Hartz, Susanne & John, Jürgen, 2009. "Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 184-192, February.
    10. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    11. Gabriele Palozzi & Sandro Brunelli & Camilla Falivena, 2018. "Higher Sustainability and Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework for Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Livio Garattini & Anna Padula, 2020. "HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 1-5, February.
    13. Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Bram Roudijk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Elly Stolk, 2022. "Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Indonesia by Mapping the DCE onto TTO Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 157-167, December.
    14. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    15. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2016. "Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 35-45.
    16. Fontrier, Anna-Maria & Visintin, Erica & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "Similarities and differences in Health Technology Assessment systems and implications for coverage decisions: evidence from 32 countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112969, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Belfiore, Alessandra & Scaletti, Alessandro & Lavorato, Domenica & Cuccurullo, Corrado, 2023. "The long process by which HTA became a paradigm: A longitudinal conceptual structure analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 74-79.
    18. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    19. Ani Matei & Adrian-Stelian Dumitru & Corina-Georgiana Antonovici, 2021. "The EU Health Technology Assessment and the Open Method of Coordination: A Relation with Potential in the Context of Network Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).

    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:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01190-2. 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.