Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y at 0 = dead
Download as PPTX, PDF4 likes813 views
This study investigates anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y, focusing on its applicability for children and adolescents as existing value sets for the EQ-5D-3L are not suitable. The research includes computer-assisted personal interviews with 350 respondents and compares various valuation methods to establish anchors. Results indicate that child health perspectives yield higher values than adult perspectives across multiple assessment methods.
![Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y
at 0 = dead
Koonal Shah1,2, Juan Manel Ramos-Goñi3, Simone Kreimeier4, Nancy Devlin1,2
[1] Office of Health Economics, UK
[2] University of Sheffield, UK
[3] EuroQol Office, Netherlands
[4] Bielefeld University, Germany
EuHEA Maastricht
13 July 2018
This study was funded by the EuroQol
Research Foundation. The views expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those
of the EuroQol Research Foundation.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/shaheuheapresentation-eq-5d-yanchoring130718-180716105845/85/Anchoring-latent-scale-values-for-the-EQ-5D-Y-at-0-dead-1-320.jpg)
Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y at 0 = dead
- 1. Anchoring latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y at 0 = dead Koonal Shah1,2, Juan Manel Ramos-Goñi3, Simone Kreimeier4, Nancy Devlin1,2 [1] Office of Health Economics, UK [2] University of Sheffield, UK [3] EuroQol Office, Netherlands [4] Bielefeld University, Germany EuHEA Maastricht 13 July 2018 This study was funded by the EuroQol Research Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the EuroQol Research Foundation.
- 2. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 2 EQ-5D-Y: state of play • EQ-5D-Y – ‘youth’ version of the EQ-5D • Use is modest but growing • No values sets available to support its use in economic evaluation • Recent research has indicated that regular EQ-5D-3L value sets cannot be used for children and adolescents • Concerns exist around the use of TTO to value the health of children
- 3. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 3 EQ-5D-Y instrument
- 4. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 4 Latent scale DCE (adult)
- 5. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 5 Latent scale DCE (adolescent)
- 6. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 6 • Aims: • To compare the use of alternative methods for establishing anchors • To generate evidence to support the anchoring of UK latent scale DCE data • To compare anchors for the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y • Computer-assisted personal interviews (n=350) • Respondents answered questions both about their own health (using EQ-5D-3L) and about the health of a 10 year old child (using EQ-5D-Y) • Two-arm design: random half of sample started with adult questions and proceeded to child questions; ordering was reversed for the other half Anchoring study
- 7. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 7 Study design 1. Introduction and warm-up questions 2. Ranking (adult) 3. VAS (adult) 4. TTO (adult) 5. DCE with duration (adult) 6. Location of dead tasks based on PUF method (adult) 7. Half-way point – perspective switch 13. Debrief and background questions 8. Ranking (child) 9. VAS (child) 10. TTO (child) 11. DCE with duration (child) 12. Location of dead tasks based on PUF method (child)
- 8. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 8 VAS – rating of 33333 and ‘Dead’
- 9. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 9 (Lag-time) TTO – valuation of 22222 and 33333
- 10. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 10 DCE with duration – seven paired comparison tasks
- 11. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 11 Location of dead – up to five tasks
- 12. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 12 Deducing the region in which dead is located
- 13. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 13 Results • All four methods show that the observed/predicted/estimated values (or rescaled ratings, in the case of VAS) for 33333 were higher, on average, under a child health perspective than under an adult health perspective Adult perspective Child perspective VAS -0.04 +0.07 TTO -0.37 -0.03 DCE -0.80 +0.06 LOD -0.50 -0.36
- 14. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 14 Results – valuation of 33333 in relation to dead
- 15. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 15 Responses to debrief questions
- 16. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 16 Criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method • Feasibility • Acceptability to decision makers • Potential for administration online • Theoretical and empirical coherence with the preference data to be anchored • Theoretical and empirical coherence with the methods for valuing adult health
- 17. EuHEA, July 2018 | SHAH 17 Thank you for listening To enquire about additional information and analyses, please contact Koonal Shah at kshah@ohe.org To keep up with the latest news and research, subscribe to our blog, OHE News Follow us on Twitter @OHENews, LinkedIn and SlideShare Office of Health Economics (OHE) Southside, 7th Floor 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT United Kingdom +44 20 7747 8850 www.ohe.org OHE’s publications may be downloaded free of charge from our website.