UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D

被引:45
|
作者
Norman, Richard [1 ]
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca [2 ,3 ]
Rowen, Donna [4 ]
Brazier, John E. [4 ]
Cella, David [5 ]
Pickard, A. Simon [6 ]
Street, Deborah J. [7 ]
Viney, Rosalie [8 ]
Revicki, Dennis [2 ]
King, Madeleine T. [2 ]
机构
[1] Curtin Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Perth, WA, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Fac Sci, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, NHMRC Clin Trials Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[5] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[6] Univ Illinois, Coll Pharm, Dept Pharm Syst Outcomes & Policy, Chicago, IL USA
[7] Univ Technol Sydney, Cl1ERE, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[8] Patient Ctr Res, Bethesda, MD USA
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
cancer; discrete choice experiment; health state valuation; utility; DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENT; PREFERENCE-BASED MEASURE; HEALTH STATES; INSTRUMENT; VALUATION; QLQ-C30; IMPACT; VALUES; QALYS;
D O I
10.1002/hec.3950
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. It contains 10 dimensions (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems), each with four levels. The aim of this study was to provide U.K. general population utility weights for the QLU-C10D. A U.K. online panel was quota-sampled to align the sample to the general population proportions of sex and age (>= 18 years). The online valuation survey included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice-pairs, each comprising two QLU-C10D health states plus duration. DCE data were analysed using conditional logistic regression to generate utility weights. Data from 2,187 respondents who completed at least one choice set were included in the DCE analysis. The final U.K. QLU-C10D utility weights comprised decrements for each level of each health dimension. For nine of the 10 dimensions (all except appetite), the expected monotonic pattern was observed across levels: Utility decreased as severity increased. For the final model, consistent monotonicity was achieved by merging inconsistent adjacent levels for appetite. The largest utility decrements were associated with physical functioning and pain. The worst possible health state (the worst level of each dimension) is -0.083, which is considered slightly worse than being dead. The U.K.-specific utility weights will enable cost-utility analysis (CUA) for the economic evaluation of new oncology therapies and technologies in the United Kingdom, where CUA is commonly used to inform resource allocation.
引用
收藏
页码:1385 / 1401
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30
    Kemmler, Georg
    Gamper, Eva
    Nerich, Virginie
    Norman, Richard
    Viney, Rosalie
    Holzner, Bernhard
    King, Madeleine
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 (12) : 3197 - 3211
  • [22] Development of United Kingdom value set for EORTC QLU-C10D: multi-attribute utility classification for the EORTC-QLQ-C30
    King, Madeleine T.
    Norman, Richard
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
    Rowen, Donna
    Bonnet, Patrick
    Cella, David
    Pickard, A. Simon
    Brazier, John E.
    Viney, Rosalie
    Revicki, Dennis A.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2017, 26 (01) : 50 - 50
  • [23] Estimating the Canadian utility weights for the cancer-specific preference-based instrument, QLU-C10D
    McTaggart-Cowan, Helen
    King, Madeleine T.
    Chan, Kelvin
    Costa, Daniel
    Hoch, Jeffrey
    Norman, Richard
    Mittmann, Nicole
    Leighl, Natasha
    Pickard, A. Simon
    Regier, Dean A.
    Viney, Rosalie
    Peacock, Stuart J.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2017, 26 (01) : 49 - 49
  • [24] The validity and responsiveness of the EORTC QLU-C10D and HUI-3 in colorectal cancer patients
    Mctaggart-Cowan, Helen
    Teckle, Paulos
    King, Madeleine
    Costa, Daniel
    Chan, Kelvin
    Hoch, Jeffrey S.
    Leighl, Natasha
    Mittmann, Nicole
    Norman, Richard
    Pickard, A. Simon
    Regier, Dean
    Viney, Rosalie
    Peacock, Stuart
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 : S69 - S70
  • [25] Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score
    Klapproth, Christoph Paul
    Fischer, Felix
    Rose, Matthias
    Karsten, Maria Margarete
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 152 : 101 - 109
  • [26] EORTC QLU-C10D valuation studies in various European countries-findings and outlook
    Kemmler, Georg
    Gamper, Eva
    Holzner, Bernhard
    Norman, Richard
    King, Madeleine
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 : S11 - S11
  • [27] RESPONSIVENESS OF THE EQ-5D-5L AND EORTC QLU-C10D IN CANCER PATIENTS
    Luo, N.
    Gandhi, M.
    Norman, R.
    King, M. T.
    Chay, W. Y.
    Chong, D. Q.
    Farid, M.
    Kanesvaran, R.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S520 - S521
  • [28] QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30
    King, M. T.
    Costa, D. S. J.
    Aaronson, N. K.
    Brazier, J. E.
    Cella, D. F.
    Fayers, P. M.
    Grimison, P.
    Janda, M.
    Kemmler, G.
    Norman, R.
    Pickard, A. S.
    Rowen, D.
    Velikova, G.
    Young, T. A.
    Viney, R.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (03) : 625 - 636
  • [29] United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument
    Revicki, Dennis A.
    King, Madeleine T.
    Viney, Rosalie
    Pickard, A. Simon
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
    Shaw, James W.
    Muller, Fabiola
    Norman, Richard
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2021, 41 (04) : 485 - 501
  • [30] TWO NEW CANCER-SPECIFIC MULTI-ATTRIBUTE UTILITY INSTRUMENTS: EORTC QLU-C10D AND FACT-8D
    King, M. T.
    Norman, R.
    Viney, R.
    Costa, D.
    Brazier, J.
    Cella, D.
    Gamper, E.
    Kemmler, G.
    McTaggart-Cowan, H.
    Peacock, S.
    Pickard, A. S.
    Rowen, D.
    Young, T. A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (07) : A807 - A807