IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i1p42-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Adding a Sleep Dimension to the EQ-5D Descriptive System

Author

Listed:
  • Yaling Yang
  • John Brazier
  • Aki Tsuchiya

Abstract

Background and Objective. The generic preference-based measures (GPBMs) of health have been widely used to obtain health utility scores for calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for economic evaluations. It has been recognized that GPBMs may miss relevant or important dimensions of health for some specific medical conditions. The objective of this study is to explore the effect of extending the current EQ-5D descriptive system by adding a sleep dimension. Methods. A new instrument, EQ-5D+Sleep, is proposed by adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D. Based on an orthogonal design, 18 EQ-5D+Sleep states and EQ-5D states were selected and a valuation study was undertaken whereby 160 members of the generic public in South Yorkshire, UK, were interviewed using time tradeoff (TTO). Econometric models have been fitted to the data. Two null hypotheses were tested: 1) the coefficient for the sleep dimension is not significant; and 2) the inclusion of the sleep dimension has no impact on the way people value the original dimensions of EQ-5D. Results and Conclusions. The results support these two null hypotheses. There seems to be no benefit to adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D. Research is required to explore the method of adding dimensions to existing descriptive systems of health.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2014. "Effect of Adding a Sleep Dimension to the EQ-5D Descriptive System," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 42-53, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:1:p:42-53
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13480428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13480428
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13480428?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. Claire Gudex, 1994. "Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 020cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    4. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Pei Wang & Sheue-Lih Chong & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Nan Luo, 2023. "A hearing bolt-on item increased the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L in a community-based hearing loss screening program," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 393-398, April.
    3. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, 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. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    2. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    3. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    4. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    5. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    6. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.
    9. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & John E. Brazier & Donna Rowen & Michael Barkham, 2013. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 381-395, April.
    11. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    13. Carl Tilling & Nancy Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham, 2010. "Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 610-619, September.
    14. Mathieu F. Janssen & Ines Buchholz & Dominik Golicki & Gouke J. Bonsel, 2022. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1081-1093, November.
    15. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    18. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    19. Hubert R. Jocham & Theo Dassen & Guy Widdershoven & Ruud Halfens, 2006. "Quality of life in palliative care cancer patients: a literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(9), pages 1188-1195, September.
    20. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:1:p:42-53. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.