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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    5. Micah Rose & Stephen Rice & Dawn Craig, 2018. "Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 97-107, June.
    6. Ash Bullement & Paul Nathan & Anna Willis & Amerah Amin & Cameron Lilley & Ceilidh Stapelkamp & Anthony Hatswell & Chris Pescott & Murtuza Bharmal, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Avelumab for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 377-390, September.
    7. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    8. Olsen, Jan Abel & Lindberg, Marie Hella & Lamu, Admassu Nadew, 2020. "Health and wellbeing in Norway: Population norms and the social gradient," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    9. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    12. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    13. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Gutacker, Nils & Siciliani, Luigi & Cookson, Richard, 2016. "Waiting time prioritisation: Evidence from England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 140-151.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Richard Cookson & Owen Cotton-Barrett & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2016. "Years of good life based on income and health: Re-engineering cost-benefit analysis to examine policy impacts on wellbeing and distributive justice," Working Papers 132cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Olofsson, Sara & Gerdtham , Ulf-G & Hultkrantz , Lars & Persson , Ulf, 2016. "Chained Approach vs Contingent Valuation for Estimating the Value of Risk Reduction," Working Papers 2016:34, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    19. Louise Longworth & Donna Fountain & Jeshika Singh & Ismail Azzabi & Glynn Owen & Ulf Lundstam & Shaji Sebastian, 2019. "Elicitation of Health-Related Utility in Perianal Fistula in Crohn’s Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 339-348, June.
    20. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.