IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i4p393-404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Impact of Adding a Respiratory Dimension to the EQ-5D-5L

Author

Listed:
  • Martine Hoogendoorn

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Mark Oppe

    (Executive Office, EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Melinde R. S. Boland

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Lucas M. A. Goossens

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Elly A. Stolk

    (Executive Office, EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Maureen P. M. H. Rutten–van Mölken

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
    Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Objectives. To evaluate the impact of adding a respiratory dimension (a bolt-on dimension) to the EQ-5D-5L health state valuations. Methods. Based on extensive regression and principal component analyses, 2 respiratory bolt-on candidates were formulated: R1, limitations in physical activities due to shortness of breath, and R2, breathing problems. Valuation interviews for the selected bolt-ons were performed with a representative sample from the Dutch general public using the standardized interview protocol and software of the EuroQol group. Hybrid models based on the combined time-tradeoff (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) data were estimated to assess whether the 5 levels of the respiratory bolt-on led to significant changes in utility values. Results. For each bolt-on candidate, slightly more than 200 valuation interviews were conducted. Mean TTO values and DCE choice probabilities for health states with a level 4 or 5 for the respiratory dimension were significantly lower compared with the same health states in the Dutch EQ-5D-5L valuation study without the respiratory dimension. Results of hybrid models showed that for the bolt-on “limitations in physical activities,†the utility decrements were significant for level 3 (–0.055), level 4 (–0.087), and level 5 (–0.135). For “breathing problems,†the utility decrements for the same levels were greater (–0.086, –0.219, and –0.327, respectively). Conclusions. The addition of each of the 2 respiratory bolt-ons to the EQ-5D-5L had a significant effect on the valuation of health states with severe levels for the bolt-on. The bolt-on dimension “breathing problems†showed the greatest utility decrements and therefore seems the most appropriate respiratory bolt-on dimension.

Suggested Citation

  • Martine Hoogendoorn & Mark Oppe & Melinde R. S. Boland & Lucas M. A. Goossens & Elly A. Stolk & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten–van Mölken, 2019. "Exploring the Impact of Adding a Respiratory Dimension to the EQ-5D-5L," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 393-404, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:393-404
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19847983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19847983
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19847983?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. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).

    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. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    4. Michal Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki & Maciej Niewada, 2016. "(Belief in) life after death impacts the utility of life before it - a difference in preferences or an artefact?," KAE Working Papers 2016-007, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    5. Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Joke A. M. Hunfeld & Aulia Iskandarsyah & Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Jan Passchier & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2017. "The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1153-1165, November.
    6. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    7. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Koonal Shah & Kristina Burström, 2018. "Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 253-270, June.
    8. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    10. Matthijs Versteegh & Arthur Attema & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 43-51, July.
    11. Feng Xie & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kathryn Gaebel & Mark Oppe & Paul Krabbe, 2014. "Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(3), pages 281-288, April.
    12. S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    13. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2022. "Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade‐off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1633-1648, August.

    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:39:y:2019:i:4:p:393-404. 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.