IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i7d10.1007_s10198-021-01424-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Zoltán Hermann

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies
    Institute of Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Márta Péntek

    (Óbuda University)

  • László Gulácsi

    (Óbuda University
    Corvinus Institute for Advanced Studies, Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh

    (Hungarian Defence Forces)

  • Zsombor Zrubka

    (Óbuda University
    Corvinus Institute for Advanced Studies, Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Background Acceptable health and sufficientarianism are emerging concepts in health resource allocation. We defined acceptability as the proportion of the general population who consider a health state acceptable for a given age. Previous studies surveyed the acceptability of health problems separately per EQ-5D-3L domain, while the acceptability of health states with co-occurring problems was barely explored. Objective To quantify the acceptability of 243 EQ-5D-3L health states for six ages from 30 to 80 years: 1458 health state–age combinations (HAcs), denoted as the acceptability set of EQ-5D-3L. Methods In 2019, an online representative survey was conducted in the Hungarian general population. We developed a novel adaptive survey algorithm and a matching statistical measurement model. The acceptability of problems was evaluated separately per EQ-5D-3L domain, followed by joint evaluation of up to 15 HAcs. The selection of HAcs depended on respondents’ previous responses. We used an empirical Bayes measurement model to estimate the full acceptability set. Results 1375 respondents (female: 50.7%) were included with mean (SD) age of 46.7 (14.6) years. We demonstrated that single problems that were acceptable separately for a given age were less acceptable when co-occurring jointly (p

Suggested Citation

  • Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01424-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01424-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01424-8
    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/s10198-021-01424-8?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. 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.
    2. Badia, Xavier & Roset, Monserrat & Herdman, Michael, 1999. "Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 943-950, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Zsombor Zrubka & Zoltán Hermann & László Gulácsi & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Determinants of the acceptability of health problems in different ages: exploring a new application of the EQ VAS," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 31-41, June.
    7. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    8. Márta Péntek & Bernadette Rojkovich & László Czirják & Pál Géher & Péter Keszthelyi & Attila Kovács & László Kovács & Zita Szabó & Zoltán Szekanecz & László Tamási & Ágnes Tóth & Ilona Ujfalussy & Noé, 2014. "Acceptability of less than perfect health states in rheumatoid arthritis: the patients’ perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(1), pages 73-82, May.
    9. Arturo J Rios-Diaz & Jimmy Lam & Margarita S Ramos & Andrea V Moscoso & Patrick Vaughn & Cheryl K Zogg & Edward J Caterson, 2016. "Global Patterns of QALY and DALY Use in Surgical Cost-Utility Analyses: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Zhihao Yang & Jan van Busschbach & Reinier Timman & M F Janssen & Nan Luo, 2017. "Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
    11. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    12. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    13. Shields, Liam, 2012. "The Prospects for Sufficientarianism," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 101-117, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Weinstein, Milton C., 1988. "A QALY is a QALY is a QALY -- Or is it?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 289-290, September.
    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. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Jose Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2022. "Reference‐dependent age weighting of quality‐adjusted life years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2515-2536, December.
    2. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    3. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    4. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    7. 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.
    8. Guizhi Weng & Yanming Hong & Nan Luo & Clara Mukuria & Jie Jiang & Zhihao Yang & Sha Li, 2023. "Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 197-207, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    11. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    13. Márta Péntek, 2019. "Patient-reported outcomes: opportunities and challenges in Central Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 1-3, June.
    14. Michela Meregaglia & Elena Nicod & Michael Drummond, 2023. "The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1151-1216, September.
    15. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    17. Zhihao Yang & Jan van Busschbach & Reinier Timman & M F Janssen & Nan Luo, 2017. "Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
    18. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    19. Zsombor Zrubka & Zoltán Hermann & László Gulácsi & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Determinants of the acceptability of health problems in different ages: exploring a new application of the EQ VAS," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 31-41, June.
    20. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, 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:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01424-8. 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.