IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i6d10.1007_s40258-021-00658-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EQ-5D-5L Health-State Values for the Mexican Population

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Gutierrez-Delgado

    (National Autonomous University of Mexico
    Secretariat of Health)

  • Rosa-María Galindo-Suárez

    (General Health Council
    ISPOR Chapter Mexico)

  • Cesar Cruz-Santiago

    (General Health Council
    ISPOR Chapter Mexico)

  • Koonal Shah

    (PHMR Ltd)

  • Manny Papadimitropoulos

    (Eli Lilly Canada Inc
    University of Toronto)

  • Yan Feng

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Bernarda Zamora

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics
    University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Objective To generate a value set for the Mexican adult general population to support and facilitate the inclusion of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) into the health technology assessment process of the Mexican healthcare authorities. Methods A representative sample of the Mexican adult population stratified by age, sex and socio-economic status was used. Following version 2.0 of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol, trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete-choice experiment (DCE) tasks included in the EQ-VT software. Generalized least squares, Tobit and Bayesian models were used for cTTO data. The choice of value set model was based on criteria that included: theoretical considerations, parsimony, logical ordering of coefficients, and statistical significance. Results Based on quality control criteria and interviewer judgment, 1000 out of 1032 participants provided useable responses. Participants’ demographic characteristics were similar to the 2010 Mexican Population Census and followed the socioeconomic structure defined by the Mexican Association of Marketing Research and Public Opinion Agencies (AMAI). The predicted index values in the final cTTO model (a heteroscedastic censored model with Bayesian estimation) ranged from − 0.5960 to 1, with 19.7% of all predicted health state scores less than 0 (i.e., worse than dead). Conclusion This study has generated the first value set representing the stated preferences of the Mexican adult population for use in estimating QALYs. The resulting EQ-5D-5L value set is technically robust and will facilitate health economic analyses as well as quality-of-life studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Gutierrez-Delgado & Rosa-María Galindo-Suárez & Cesar Cruz-Santiago & Koonal Shah & Manny Papadimitropoulos & Yan Feng & Bernarda Zamora & Nancy Devlin, 2021. "EQ-5D-5L Health-State Values for the Mexican Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 905-914, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00658-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00658-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00658-0
    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/s40258-021-00658-0?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. Nancy J. Devlin & David Parkin & John Browne, 2010. "Patient‐reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ‐5D data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 886-905, August.
    2. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    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. Fan Yang & Kenneth R. Katumba & Bram Roudijk & Zhihao Yang & Paul Revill & Susan Griffin & Perez N. Ochanda & Mohammed Lamorde & Giulia Greco & Janet Seeley & Mark Sculpher, 2022. "Developing the EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Uganda Using the ‘Lite’ Protocol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 309-321, March.

    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. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    3. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    4. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2015. "Multidimensional performance assessment using dominance criteria," Working Papers 115cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2018. "Multidimensional performance assessment of public sector organisations using dominance criteria," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 13-27, February.
    6. Knott, Rachel J. & Lorgelly, Paula K. & Black, Nicole & Hollingsworth, Bruce, 2017. "Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 247-255.
    7. Shaofan Chen & Bo Burström & Vibeke Sparring & Dongfu Qian & Kristina Burström, 2019. "Differential Impact of an Education-Based Intervention for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-12, July.
    8. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.
    9. David Nuttall & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2015. "Inter‐Provider Comparison Of Patient‐Reported Outcomes: Developing An Adjustment To Account For Differences In Patient Case Mix," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 41-54, January.
    10. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Meregaglia, Michela & Ciani, Oriana & Roudijk, Bram & Jommi, Claudio, 2022. "An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    11. Hareth Al-Janabi & Andrea Manca & Joanna Coast, 2017. "Predicting carer health effects for use in economic evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    12. S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    13. Marta Rodríguez-Hernández & Juan-José Criado-Álvarez & Ana-Isabel Corregidor-Sánchez & José L. Martín-Conty & Alicia Mohedano-Moriano & Begoña Polonio-López, 2021. "Effects of Virtual Reality-Based Therapy on Quality of Life of Patients with Subacute Stroke: A Three-Month Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00658-0. 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.