IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i12d10.1007_s40273-024-01432-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Mihir Gandhi

    (Consortium for Clinical Research and Innovation Singapore
    Duke-NUS Medical School
    Tampere University)

  • Ravindran Kanesvaran

    (National Cancer Centre Singapore)

  • Mohamad Farid Bin Harunal Rashid

    (National Cancer Centre Singapore)

  • Dawn Qingqing Chong

    (National Cancer Centre Singapore)

  • Wen-Yee Chay

    (National Cancer Centre Singapore)

  • Rachel Lee-Yin Tan

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Madeleine T. King

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the study was to develop and compare utility value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30, using the preferences of the general public and cancer patients in Singapore, and to assess their measurement properties. Methods A total of 600 individuals from the general public were recruited using a multi-stage random sampling, along with 626 cancer patients with clinically confirmed diagnoses from outpatient clinics of the largest tertiary cancer hospital. Each participant valued 16 pairs of EORTC QLU-C10D health states using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Conditional logit models were used to analyze the DCE responses of the general public and cancer patients separately. Utility values were assessed for known-group validity and responsiveness in the cancer patients by comparing mean values across subgroups of patients and calculating standardized response means using longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 data, respectively. Results Physical functioning and pain had the most impact on utility for both cancer patients and general public groups. Worst health state utility values were −0.821 and −0.463 for the general public and cancer patients, respectively. Cancer patients’ values were lower for mild-to-moderate health states but higher for moderately-to-highly impaired states compared with the general public’s values. Both value sets discriminated between patients with differing characteristics and responded equally well to improved health status, but the cancer patients’ value set was slightly more responsive to deteriorated health. Conclusions EORTC QLU-C10D value sets based on the preferences of the Singaporean general public and cancer patients exhibited differences in values but similar psychometric properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihir Gandhi & Ravindran Kanesvaran & Mohamad Farid Bin Harunal Rashid & Dawn Qingqing Chong & Wen-Yee Chay & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Richard Norman & Madeleine T. King & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1413-1425, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01432-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01432-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01432-5
    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/s40273-024-01432-5?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. Dennis A. Revicki & Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & James W. Shaw & Fabiola Müller & Richard Norman, 2021. "United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 485-501, May.
    2. Stuart J. Wright & Caroline M. Vass & Gene Sim & Michael Burton & Denzil G. Fiebig & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 475-488, October.
    3. Donna Rowen & Brendan Mulhern & Sube Banerjee & Rhian Tait & Caroline Watchurst & Sarah C. Smith & Tracey A. Young & Martin Knapp & John E. Brazier, 2015. "Comparison of General Population, Patient, and Carer Utility Values for Dementia Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 68-80, January.
    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. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. 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).
    3. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    4. Micha J. Pilz & Simon Seyringer & Lára R. Hallsson & Andrew Bottomley & Femke Jansen & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Marianne J. Rutten & Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw & Peter D. Siersema & Eva Mar, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1539-1555, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Qingqing Chai & Zhihao Yang & Xiaoyan Liu & Di An & Jiangyang Du & Xiumei Ma & Kim Rand & Bin Wu & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients’ perspective: a feasibility study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 915-924, August.
    7. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    8. Julie Ratcliffe & Billingsley Kaambwa & Claire Hutchinson & Emily Lancsar, 2020. "Empirical Investigation of Ranking vs Best–Worst Scaling Generated Preferences for Attributes of Quality of Life: One and the Same or Differentiable?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(3), pages 307-315, June.
    9. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    10. Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Terry N. Flynn & Hong Il Yoo & Jay Magidson & Mark Oppe, 2018. "Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 463-466, October.
    11. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Kelly Tate & Andrew Stewart & Katherine Payne, 2018. "An Exploratory Application of Eye-Tracking Methods in a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 658-672, August.
    12. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    13. Chen-Wei Pan & Jun-Yi He & Yan-Bo Zhu & Chun-Hua Zhao & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2023. "Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 885-893, August.
    14. Micha J. Pilz & Simone Seyringer & Imad Al-Naesan & Madeleine T. King & Andrew Bottomley & Richard Norman & Lisa Schlosser & Tobias Hell & Eva Maria Gamper, 2024. "Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients—Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 627-640, July.
    15. Haode Wang & Donna L. Rowen & John E. Brazier & Litian Jiang, 2023. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 405-418, May.
    16. Caroline M Vass & Anne Barton & Katherine Payne, 2022. "Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 109-119, January.

    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:42:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01432-5. 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.