IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v354y2024ics0277953624005264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating an SF-6Dv2 social value set for New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Sullivan, Trudy
  • McCarty, Georgia
  • Ombler, Franz
  • Turner, Robin
  • Mulhern, Brendan
  • Hansen, Paul

Abstract

The SF-6D health descriptive system and its second version published in 2020, the SF-6Dv2, is used worldwide for valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for economic evaluation and measuring patient-reported health outcomes. In this study, a valuation tool was developed and applied to create a social value set, comprising 18,750 health state values, for the SF-6Dv2 for New Zealand (NZ). This tool was adapted and extended from the one used to create a social value set for the EQ-5D-5L, a simpler health descriptive system with fewer dimensions and health states. The tool implements the PAPRIKA method, a type of adaptive discrete choice experiment, and a binary search algorithm to identify health states worse than dead and has extensive data quality controls to ensure the validity and reliability of the social value set derived from participants' personal value sets. The tool, accompanied by a short introductory video designed specifically for the SF-6Dv2, was distributed via an online survey to a large representative sample of adult New Zealanders in June–July 2022. The tool's data quality controls enabled participants who failed to understand or sincerely engage with the valuation tasks to be identified and excluded, resulting in the participants being pared down to a sub-sample of 2985 ‘high-quality’ participants whose personal value sets were averaged for the social value set. These results, including participants' positive feedback, demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of using the tool to value larger health descriptive systems such as the SF-6Dv2. Having successfully created an SF-6Dv2 social value set for NZ, the valuation tool can be readily applied to other countries, used to generate personal value sets for personalised medicine and adapted to create value sets for other health descriptive systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Sullivan, Trudy & McCarty, Georgia & Ombler, Franz & Turner, Robin & Mulhern, Brendan & Hansen, Paul, 2024. "Creating an SF-6Dv2 social value set for New Zealand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:354:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005264
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624005264
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117073?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. 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. 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).
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & John Brazier, 2021. "Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia Using an International Protocol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1151-1162, October.
    8. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    9. Burge, Peter & Netten, Ann & Gallo, Federico, 2010. "Estimating the value of social care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 883-894, December.
    10. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Oehlmann, Malte, 2023. "The performance of full versus partial profile choice set designs in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    11. Jack Powers & James M. McGree & David Grieve & Ratna Aseervatham & Suzanne Ryan & Paul Corry, 2023. "Managing surgical waiting lists through dynamic priority scoring," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 533-557, September.
    12. Srikumar, Gajan & Eglinton, Tim & MacCormick, Andrew D., 2020. "Development of the General surgery prioritisation tool implemented in New Zealand in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1043-1049.
    13. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    14. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Babashahi, Saeideh & Hansen, Paul & Sullivan, Trudy, 2021. "Creating a priority list of non-communicable diseases to support health research funding decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 221-228.
    4. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    5. Jorge-Eduardo Martínez-Pérez & José-María Abellán-Perpiñán & Fernando-Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & Juan-José Ruiz-López, 2024. "A Spanish value set for the SF-6D based on the SF-12 v1," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1333-1343, November.
    6. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    7. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Francesca Cornaglia & Naomi E. Feldman & Andrew Leigh, 2014. "Crime and Mental Well-Being," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 110-140.
    14. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    15. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    16. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    17. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    18. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Johanna L. Bosch & Elkan F. Halpern & G. Scott Gazelle, 2002. "Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after Treatment of Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 403-409, October.

    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:eee:socmed:v:354:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005264. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.