Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:49:46.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do the 15D scores and time trade-off (TTO) values of hospital patients' own health agree?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Tarja Honkalampi  and
Harri Sintonen
Tarja Honkalampi
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Harri Sintonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FINOHTA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate an empirical relationship and degree of agreement between the TTO values of patients’ own health and their 15D scores.

Methods: A total of 863 hospital patients aged 18–93 years filled in the 15D questionnaire to establish their 15D score and valued their present health with TTO. Wilcoxon signed rank test, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and Tobit models were used to analyze the relation between the 15D and TTO scores.

Results: The null hypothesis of no tendency for one set of scores to be higher or lower than the other set could not be rejected. Apart from dummies for few patients groups, no additional information to the 15D score was found that would have explained significantly the variance in the TTO valuations of patients’ own health. The agreement between these to sets of scores turned out quite good at the aggregate level.

Conclusions: To the extent that mean TTO valuations of patients own health are valid for QALY calculations as they at least theoretically should be, and if experience of health states to be valued counts, the 15D scores are also valid without any transformation in a large group of heterogeneous patients. However, in certain patient groups, the agreement was not as good as overall.

Keywords

QALYHealth utilitiesValidityTime trade-offAgreement
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 117 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Arnesen, T, Trommald, M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?—A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2005;14:39–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Austin, PC. A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value Health. 2002;5:329–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;i:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dolan, P. Modelling valuations for health states: The effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38:189–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Dolan, P, Roberts, J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:919–929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Dolan, P, Stalmeier, P. The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: Constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic. J Health Econ. 2003;22:445–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Dolan, P, Sutton, M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1519–1530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Fowler, FJ Jr, Cleary, PD, Massagli, MP, et al. The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:195–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2). http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/ENG-lfnar-2003–2.pdf (accessed July 8, 2009).Google Scholar
10. Greene, WH. LIMDEP version 7.0: User's manual, revised version. New York: Econometric Software, Inc; 1998.Google Scholar
11. Hawthorne, G, Richardson, J, Day, N. A Comparison of five multi attribute utility instruments. Working Paper 140. Melbourne: Centre for Health Programme Evaluation; 2003. http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp140.pdf (accessed August 21, 2008).Google Scholar
12. Menzel, P, Dolan, P, Richardson, J, et al. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:2149–2158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Menzel, P, Gold, MR, Nord, E, et al. Towards a broader conception of values in measuring health care cost-effectiveness. Hastings Center Report. 1999;29:7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Müller, R, Büttner, P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med. 1994;13:2465–2476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Nord, E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:559–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Nord, E, Pinto Prades, JL, Richardson, J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programs. Health Econ. 1999;8:25–39.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Parkin, D, Devlin, N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 2006;15:653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Publications. www.15D-instrument.net/service.cntum?pageId=110293 (accessed August 21, 2009).Google Scholar
19. Saarni, SI, Härkänen, T, Sintonen, H, et al. The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1403–1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Sintonen, H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Sintonen, H. The 15-D measure of health-related quality of life. II. Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 42; 1995. http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp42.pdf (accessed August 21, 2009).Google Scholar
22. Stavem, K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Stavem, K. Quality of life in epilepsy: Comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Res. 1998;29:201–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Torrance, GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Tsevat, J, Cook, EF, Green, ML, et al. Health values of the seriously ill. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122;514–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Honkalampi & Sintonen supplementary material

Figure 1 and Table 1

Download Honkalampi & Sintonen supplementary material(File)
File 57.3 KB