IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v14y2024i1d10.1186_s13561-024-00552-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring utility values of eye conditions among children in India using the EQ-5D-Y instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Sunny Mannava

    (University of Hyderabad)

  • Rishi Raj Borah

    (Orbis India Country Office)

  • B. R. Shamanna

    (University of Hyderabad)

Abstract

Background Vision impairment and blindness are significant global public health challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where access to eye care services remains limited. India has significantly reduced the prevalence of Blindness and Vision Impairment (VI) over the last two decades. This was achieved with the help of greater investments towards blindness control programs. The use of utility values helps in conducting economic evaluations of various eye health programs and empirically justify investing in these programs. This study aimed to estimate utility values for various childhood eye conditions in central India using the EuroQol-Five-Dimension-Youth (EQ-5D-Y) instrument. Methods This is a before and after study with data collected at two time points for few participants and at only one time point for others. This study was undertaken at Shri Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya (SNC) and included children representing central and north India. Participants were randomly sampled in the hospital. After comprehensive eye examination, participants completed the EuroQol-Five-Dimension-Youth (EQ-5D-Y) questionnaire along with EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) measurement to elicit their health state for their condition which was repeated after six months post-intervention to measure the change in utility value. We have used Indonesian value set to analyze the preference scores of each dimension of EQ-5D-Y. Results Utility values of 16 eye conditions were estimated at baseline and seven conditions were followed up for post-intervention utility value estimation. There is a statistically significant improvement in the utility values post-intervention amongst six conditions. Blindness and Pediatric cataract had the greatest change (0.23 and 0.2 respectively) in utility value whereas mild Vision Impairment (VI) showed the least change (0.02) in the utility value post-intervention. Blindness had the lowest baseline (0.62) and post-intervention (0.85) utility value. Conclusion The utility values estimated in this study showed that generic measures such as EQ-5D-Y may be used to elicit health states for various eye conditions amongst children. These estimates are helpful in undertaking cost-utility analyses of eye health programs and interventions aimed at these eye conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunny Mannava & Rishi Raj Borah & B. R. Shamanna, 2024. "Measuring utility values of eye conditions among children in India using the EQ-5D-Y instrument," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00552-0
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-024-00552-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-024-00552-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-024-00552-0?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453, Decembrie.
    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. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    2. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Nieuwenhuis, Sonja & Ologun, Adesoji & Mortimore, Gordon & Mpakateni, Martin, 2019. "Embedding value-for-money in practice: A case study of a health pooled fund programme implemented in conflict-affected South Sudan," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Lawrence Mwenge & Linda Sande & Collin Mangenah & Nurilign Ahmed & Sarah Kanema & Marc d’Elbée & Euphemia Sibanda & Thokozani Kalua & Gertrude Ncube & Cheryl C Johnson & Karin Hatzold & Frances M Cowa, 2017. "Costs of facility-based HIV testing in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Kelsey R Landrum & Bria J Hall & Emily R Smith & Walter Flores & Randall Lou-Meda & Henry E Rice, 2022. "Challenges with pediatric surgical financing and universal health coverage in Guatemala: A qualitative analysis," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Andronis, Lazaros & Morgan, Cameron & Donaldson, Cam & Lancsar, Emily & Petrou, Stavros, 2023. "Views, obstacles, and uncertainties around the inclusion of children and young people's time in economic evaluations: Findings from an international survey of health economists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    8. Reka E. Pataky & Stirling Bryan & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Stuart Peacock & Dean A. Regier, 2022. "Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(10), pages 931-941, October.
    9. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Gemma E. Shields & Paul Clarkson & Ash Bullement & Warren Stevens & Mark Wilberforce & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2024. "Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 737-749, July.
    11. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Nieuwenhuis, Sonja & Ologun, Adesoji & Mortimore, Gordon & Mpakateni, Martin, 2019. "Embedding value-for-money in practice: a case study of a health pooled fund programme implemented in conflict-affected South Sudan," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101766, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.
    13. Maya Basbous & Nadine Yehya & Nisreen Salti & Hani Tamim & Mona Nabulsi, 2024. "Cost-benefit analysis of a multicomponent breastfeeding promotion and support intervention in a developing country," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Valentin Brodszky & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Petra Baji & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek & Alexandru Rotar & Konstantin Tachkov & Susanne Mayer & Judit Simon & Maciej Niewada & Rok Hren & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 155-172, June.
    15. Jacob Smith, 2023. "Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach," Papers 2311.07905, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    16. Ulla Kou Griffiths & Rosa Legood & Catherine Pitt, 2016. "Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low‐income, Middle‐income and High‐income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 29-41, February.
    17. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    18. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    19. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    20. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.

    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:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00552-0. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.