IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i1p89-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Aureliano Paolo Finch

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
    EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • John Brazier

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Clara Mukuria

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

Abstract

Background Generic preference-based measures (GPBMs) such as the EQ-5D are valid across many conditions, but in some cases, “bolting on†additional dimensions may improve validity. The selection of “bolt-ons†has been based on the psychometric impact of individual dimensions, but preferences provide another important way to select them. This study aims to test the potential of using pairwise choices to inform the selection of bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L. Methods General population preferences were collected using an online survey of 1040 UK residents. Three EQ-5D-5L health state pairs were selected based on pairs that had a 50:50 split in respondent preferences from a previous pairwise survey. Participants were presented with pairwise choices of EQ-5D-5L health states without and with bolt-ons of hearing, sleep, cognition, energy, and relationships, each added individually. Logistic models were used to assess the impact of bolt-ons, as well as bolt-ons at different severity levels, on the log odds of responders choosing between health states. Results Preferences varied according to the bolt-ons and their severity level (only levels 1, 3, and 5 were used). Additions of bolt-ons at level 1 generally resulted in nonstatistically significant differences while additions of bolt-ons at level 3 and level 5 produced a negative and statistically significant impact on preferences for the health state with the bolt-on. At level 5, hearing had the largest impact, followed by cognition, relationships, energy, and sleep. At level 3, cognition produced the largest impact, followed by hearing and sleep with similar impacts, energy, and relationships. This ordering offers information for bolt-on selection, with hearing and cognition appearing as the most important. The weight placed on the different health problems is not constant across severity levels between bolt-ons. Conclusions Pairwise choices provide a cost-effective approach of generating information on preferences to support bolt-on selection.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:89-99
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20969686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20969686
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20969686?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. 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.
    2. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    3. 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. 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).
    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.

    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. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    5. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    6. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    7. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    8. 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.
    9. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    10. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    13. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Edward Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2018. "What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 557-570, May.
    14. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    15. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    16. SeungJin Bae & Eun Bae & Sang Lim, 2014. "Sourcing Quality-of-Life Weights Obtained from Previous Studies: Theory and Reality in Korea," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 141-150, June.
    17. Simon J Palfreyman & Phil Shackley & John E Brazier, 2010. "Assessing current health‐related quality of life questionnaires administered to patients with venous ulcers: can they be used in economic evaluations?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5‐6), pages 892-897, March.
    18. Hakjun Lee & Shik Heo, 2022. "Consumption Pattern Benefits of the Cultural Activities in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:1:p:89-99. 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.