IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i4d10.1007_s10198-019-01156-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Mihir Gandhi

    (Singapore Clinical Research Institute
    Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School
    Tampere Center for Child Health Research, Tampere University)

  • Marcus Ang

    (Singapore National Eye Centre
    Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Kelvin Teo

    (Singapore National Eye Centre)

  • Chee Wai Wong

    (Singapore National Eye Centre)

  • Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei

    (Singapore National Eye Centre)

  • Rachel Lee-Yin Tan

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Mathieu F. Janssen

    (Erasmus MC)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objectives (1) To evaluate the effect of adding a vision dimension (‘bolt-on’) to the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) on their responsiveness, and (2) to compare the responsiveness of a vision ‘bolt-on’ EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L + V) with SF-6D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) to the benefit of cataract surgery. Methods Sixty-three patients were assessed before and after their cataract surgery using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI3, as well as a 3-level and a 5-level vision dimension. Preference-based indices were calculated using available value sets for EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-3L + V, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, and HUI3, and non-preference-based indices were calculated using the sum-score method for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-5L + V (vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L). Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM) and F-statistic. Results Among preference-based indices, mean changes from pre to post-surgery in EQ-5D-3L + V and EQ-5D-3L indices were 0.031 and 0.018, respectively. The mean changes for EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D and HUI3 indices were 0.020, 0.012 and 0.105, respectively. The SRM (F-statistic) for EQ-5D-3L + V and EQ-5D-3L indices were 0.458 (13.2) and 0.098 (0.6), respectively. The responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L + V was better than EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D; the responsiveness of HUI3 was better than all other measures. Using non-preference-based indices, mean change for EQ-5D-5L + V and EQ-5D-5L were 0.067 and 0.017, respectively. The corresponding SRM (F-statistic) were 0.709 (31.7) and 0.295 (5.4). Conclusions Preliminary evidence from our study suggests that a vision ‘bolt-on’ may increase the responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L to change in health outcomes experienced by patients undergoing cataract surgery. In absence of the preference-based vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L index, HUI3 was the most responsive measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01156-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01156-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01156-w
    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/s10198-019-01156-w?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. 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.
    2. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    3. 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. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.
    2. Wijnen, Ben F.M. & Mosweu, Iris & Majoie, Marian H.J.M. & Ridsdale, Leone & de Kinderen, Reina J.A. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & McCrone, Paul, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106170, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Mathieu F. Janssen & Gouke J. Bonsel & Nan Luo, 2018. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 675-697, June.
    4. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    5. Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Joke A. M. Hunfeld & Aulia Iskandarsyah & Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Jan Passchier & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2017. "The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1153-1165, November.
    6. Devlin, N. & Shah, K.K & Buckingham, K., 2017. "What is the Normative Basis for Selecting the Measure of 'Average' Preferences for Use in Social Choices?," Research Papers 001798, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Ole Marten & Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Implausible States: Prevalence of EQ-5D-5L States in the General Population and Its Effect on Health State Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 735-745, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. Ben F. M. Wijnen & Iris Mosweu & Marian H. J. M. Majoie & Leone Ridsdale & Reina J. A. Kinderen & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Paul McCrone, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 861-870, July.
    11. Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    12. 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).
    13. Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 699-713, June.
    14. Kelleher, Dan & Barry, Luke & Hobbins, Anna & O'Neill, Stephen & Doherty, Edel & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2020. "Examining the transnational health preferences of a group of Eastern European migrants relative to a European host population using the EQ-5D-5L," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    15. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    16. Clarke, Philip & Erreygers, Guido, 2020. "Defining and measuring health poverty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    19. 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.
    20. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D; Responsiveness; Vision; Bolt-on; Cataract;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01156-w. 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: http://www.springer.com .

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