IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v28y2019i12p1385-1401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Norman
  • Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber
  • Donna Rowen
  • John E. Brazier
  • David Cella
  • A. Simon Pickard
  • Deborah J. Street
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Dennis Revicki
  • Madeleine T. King
  • On behalf of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group and the MAUCa Consortium

Abstract

The EORTC QLU‐C10D is a new multi‐attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer‐specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ‐C30. It contains 10 dimensions (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems), each with four levels. The aim of this study was to provide U.K. general population utility weights for the QLU‐C10D. A U.K. online panel was quota‐sampled to align the sample to the general population proportions of sex and age (≥18 years). The online valuation survey included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice‐pairs, each comprising two QLU‐C10D health states plus duration. DCE data were analysed using conditional logistic regression to generate utility weights. Data from 2,187 respondents who completed at least one choice set were included in the DCE analysis. The final U.K. QLU‐C10D utility weights comprised decrements for each level of each health dimension. For nine of the 10 dimensions (all except appetite), the expected monotonic pattern was observed across levels: Utility decreased as severity increased. For the final model, consistent monotonicity was achieved by merging inconsistent adjacent levels for appetite. The largest utility decrements were associated with physical functioning and pain. The worst possible health state (the worst level of each dimension) is −0.083, which is considered slightly worse than being dead. The U.K.‐specific utility weights will enable cost–utility analysis (CUA) for the economic evaluation of new oncology therapies and technologies in the United Kingdom, where CUA is commonly used to inform resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:12:p:1385-1401
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3950?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey Young & Rachel Ibbotson, 2012. "It’s All in the Name, or Is It? The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 31-40, January.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "The Validity of QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 21-32, February.
    4. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    5. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Bleichrodt, Han & Wakker, Peter & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs by Risk Neutrality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 107-114, November.
    8. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    9. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    10. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    11. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    12. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    13. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    14. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    15. 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.
    16. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    4. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
    5. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    6. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2012. "Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01," Working Papers 2012/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    8. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    9. 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.
    10. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    11. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    12. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    13. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    14. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    15. 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).
    16. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Paula Lorgelly & Emily Lancsar & Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 439-451, April.
    17. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    18. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    19. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    20. Kailu Wang & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Amy Yuen-Kwan Wong & Annie Wai-Ling Cheung & Eng-Kiong Yeoh, 2022. "Preference of Older Adults for Flexibility in Service and Providers in Community-Based Social Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, 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:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:12:p:1385-1401. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.