4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

US valuation of the EQ-5D health states - Development and testing of the D1 valuation model

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 203-220

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003

关键词

EQ-5D; health status; preference weights; time trade-off (TTO)

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [5 R01 HS10243] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The EQ-5D is a brief, multiattribute, preference-based health status measure. This article describes the development of a statistical model for generating US population-based EQ-5D preference weights. Methods: A multistage probability sample was selected from the US adult civilian noninstitutional population. Respondents valued 13 of 243 EQ-5D health states using the time trade-off (TTO) method. Data for 12 states were used in econometric modeling. The TTO valuations were linearly transformed to lie on the interval [-1, 1]. Methods were investigated to account for interaction effects caused by having problems in multiple EQ-5D dimensions. Several alternative model specifications (eg, pooled least squares, random effects) also were considered. A modified split-sample approach was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the models. All statistical analyses took into account the clustering and disproportionate selection probabilities inherent in our sampling design. Results: Our D1 model for the EQ-5D included ordinal terms to capture the effect of departures from perfect health as well as interaction effects. A random effects specification of the D1 model yielded a good fit for the observed TTO data, with an overall R-2 of 0.38, a mean absolute error of 0.025, and 7 prediction errors exceeding 0.05 in absolute magnitude. Conclusions: The D1 model best predicts the values for observed health states. The resulting preference weight estimates represent a significant enhancement of the EQ-5D's utility for health status assessment and economic analysis in the US.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据