IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i8d10.1007_s10198-020-01195-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Kennedy-Martin

    (Kennedy Martin Health Outcomes Ltd)

  • Bernhard Slaap

    (Erasmus MC
    EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Michael Herdman

    (Office of Health Economics (OHE))

  • Mandy Reenen

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Tessa Kennedy-Martin

    (Kennedy Martin Health Outcomes Ltd)

  • Wolfgang Greiner

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Jan Busschbach

    (Erasmus MC)

  • Kristina S. Boye

    (Eli Lilly and Company)

Abstract

Background Several multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are available from which utilities can be derived for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). This study provides a review of recommendations from national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies regarding the choice of MAUIs. Methods A list was compiled of HTA agencies that provide or refer to published official pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines for pricing, reimbursement or market access. The guidelines were reviewed for recommendations on the indirect calculation of utilities and categorized as: a preference for a specific MAUI; providing no MAUI preference, but providing examples of suitable MAUIs and/or recommending the use of national value sets; and recommending CUA, but not providing examples of MAUIs. Results Thirty-four PE guidelines were included for review. MAUIs named for use in CUA: EQ-5D (n = 29 guidelines), the SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 10), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). EQ-5D was a preferred MAUI in 15 guidelines. Alongside the EQ-5D, the HUI was a preferred MAUI in one guideline, with DALY disability weights mentioned in another. Fourteen guidelines expressed no preference for a specific MAUI, but provided examples: EQ-5D (n = 14), SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 9), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). Of those that did not specify a particular MAUI, 12 preferred calculating utilities using national preference weights. Conclusions The EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three MAUIs most frequently mentioned in guidelines. The most commonly cited MAUI (in 85% of PE guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in CUA in HTA.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01195-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
    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/s10198-020-01195-8?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 & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
    2. SeungJin Bae & SooOk Lee & Eun Bae & Sunmee Jang, 2013. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 257-267, April.
    3. Zoltán Kaló & Adrian Gheorghe & Mirjana Huic & Marcell Csanádi & Finn Boerlum Kristensen, 2016. "HTA Implementation Roadmap in Central and Eastern European Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 179-192, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 26th October 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-10-26 12:00:03

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    2. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    3. Aimin Wang & Kim Rand & Zhihao Yang & Richard Brooks & Jan Busschbach, 2022. "The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1007-1014, August.
    4. 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.

    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. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    2. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    3. Hernández-Alava, Mónica & Pudney, Stephen, 2017. "Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: The switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 139-152.
    4. Márta Péntek & Ottó Hajdu & Fanni Rencz & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Valentin Brodszky & Petra Baji & Zsombor Zrubka & Klára Major & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Subjective expectations regarding ageing: a cross-sectional online population survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 17-30, June.
    5. Green Bae & SeungJin Bae & Donghwan Lee & Juhee Han & Dong-Hoe Koo & Do Yeun Kim & Hee-Jun Kim & Sung Young Oh & Hee Yeon Lee & Jong Hwan Lee & Hye Sook Han & Hyerim Ha & Jin Hyoung Kang, 2021. "Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Gyeyoung Choi & Yujeong Kim & Gyeongseon Shin & SeungJin Bae, 2022. "Projecting Lifetime Health Outcomes and Costs Associated with the Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Exposure among Adult Women in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    8. Héctor Pifarré i Arolas & Christian Dudel, 2019. "An Ordinal Measure of Population Health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 1219-1243, June.
    9. Stephen Poteet & Benjamin M. Craig, 2021. "QALYs for COVID-19: A Comparison of US EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 339-345, May.
    10. Klara Greffin & Holger Muehlan & Neeltje van den Berg & Wolfgang Hoffmann & Oliver Ritter & Michael Oeff & Georg Schomerus & Silke Schmidt, 2021. "Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Jeewon Park & SeungJin Bae, 2020. "Modeling Healthcare Costs Attributable to Secondhand Smoke Exposure at Home among South Korean Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, June.
    12. Marian Sorin Paveliu & Elena Olariu & Raluca Caplescu & Yemi Oluboyede & Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Simona Ernu & Luke Vale, 2021. "Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    13. David G. T. Whitehurst & Nicholas R. Latimer & Aura Kagan & Rebecca Palmer & Nina Simmons-Mackie & J. Charles Victor & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Developing Accessible, Pictorial Versions of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Suitable for Economic Evaluation: A Report of Preliminary Studies Conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 225-231, September.
    14. Sandor Kovács & Zoltán Kaló & Rita Daubner‐Bendes & Katarzyna Kolasa & Rok Hren & Tomas Tesar & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Werner Brouwer & Carlo Federici & Mike Drummond & Antal Tamás Zemplényi, 2022. "Implementation of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 195-206, September.
    15. García-Mochón, Leticia & Espín Balbino, Jaime & Olry de Labry Lima, Antonio & Caro Martinez, Araceli & Martin Ruiz, Eva & Pérez Velasco, Román, 2019. "HTA and decision-making processes in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe: Results from a survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 182-190.
    16. Yea-Chan Lee & Da-Hye Son & Yu-Jin Kwon, 2020. "U-Shaped Association between Sleep Duration, C-Reactive Protein, and Uric Acid in Korean Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-11, April.
    17. Bae, Eun-Young & Hong, Ji-Min & Kwon, Hye-Young & Jang, Suhyun & Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, SeungJin & Yang, Bong-Min, 2016. "Eight-year experience of using HTA in drug reimbursement: South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 612-620.
    18. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    19. Wenjing Zhou & Anle Shen & Zhihao Yang & Pei Wang & Bin Wu & Michael Herdman & Nan Luo, 2021. "Patient-caregiver agreement and test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(7), pages 1103-1113, September.
    20. Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health technology assessment; Cost-utility analysis; Multi-attribute utility instruments; Pharmacoeconomics; Guidelines; Utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:8:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01195-8. 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.