IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i4p485-501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis A. Revicki

    (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA)

  • Madeleine T. King

    (School of Psychology, Sydney, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (Centre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • A. Simon Pickard

    (Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber

    (School of Psychology, Sydney, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • James W. Shaw

    (Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment, Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA)

  • Fabiola Müller

    (School of Psychology, Sydney, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Richard Norman

    (School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia)

Abstract

Background The EORTC QLU-C10D is a multiattribute utility measure derived from the cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains 10 dimensions (physical, role, social and emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems). The objective of this study was to develop a United States value set for the QLU-C10D. Methods A US online panel was quota recruited to achieve a representative sample for sex, age (≥18 y), race, and ethnicity. Respondents undertook a discrete choice experiment, each completing 16 choice-pairs, randomly assigned from a total of 960 choice-pairs. Each pair included 2 QLU-C10D health states and duration. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient for life expectancy. Results A total of 2480 panel members opted in, 2333 (94%) completed at least 1 choice-pair, and 2273 (92%) completed all choice-pairs. Within dimensions, weights were generally monotonic. Physical functioning, role functioning, and pain were associated with the largest utility weights. Cancer-specific dimensions, such as nausea and bowel problems, were associated with moderate utility decrements, as were general issues such as problems with emotional functioning and social functioning. Sleep problems and fatigue were associated with smaller utility decrements. The value of the worst health state was 0.032, which was slightly greater than 0 (equivalent to being dead). Conclusions This study provides the US-specific value set for the QLU-C10D. These estimated health state scores, based on responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, can be used to evaluate the cost-utility of oncology treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:4:p:485-501
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211003569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211003569
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211003569?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. 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.
    2. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    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. 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.

    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 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.
    2. Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess & Paula Cronin & Madeleine King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 773-786, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Lippi Bruni, Matteo & Ugolini, Cristina & Verzulli, Rossella, 2021. "Should I wait or should I go? Travelling versus waiting for better healthcare," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    6. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    7. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    8. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    12. 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.
    13. Godager, Geir & Wiesen, Daniel, 2013. "Profit or patients’ health benefit? Exploring the heterogeneity in physician altruism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1105-1116.
    14. Fischer, Sabine & Wollni, Meike, 2018. "The role of farmers’ trust, risk and time preferences for contract choices: Experimental evidence from the Ghanaian pineapple sector," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 67-81.
    15. 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.
    16. Ole Marten & Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Implausible States: Prevalence of EQ-5D-5L States in the General Population and Its Effect on Health State Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 735-745, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    19. Tensay Meles & L. (Lisa B.) Ryan & Sanghamitra Mukherjee, 2019. "Preferences for Renewable Home Heating: A Choice Experiment Study of Heat Pump System in Ireland," Open Access publications 10197/11467, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    20. Bi, Xiang & House, Lisa & Gao, Zhifeng, 2014. "Can Nutrition and Health Information Increase Demand for Seafood among Parents? Evidence from a Choice Experiment," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170266, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:41:y:2021:i:4:p:485-501. 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.