A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA

被引:121
作者
Clemens, Susan [1 ]
Begum, Nelufa [1 ]
Harper, Catherine [1 ]
Whitty, Jennifer A. [2 ]
Scuffham, Paul A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Govt Dept Hlth, Chief Hlth Officer Branch, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Griffith Univ, Griffith Hlth Inst, Sch Med, Ctr Appl Hlth Econ, Meadowbrook, Qld 4131, Australia
关键词
Quality of life; Australia; Population norms; Utility weights; HEALTH STATES; INDEX; VALUATION; WEIGHTS;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
100404 [儿少卫生与妇幼保健学];
摘要
To provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3L by age and gender based on a representative adult sample in Queensland, Australia; to assess differences in health-related quality of life by applying the Australian, UK and USA value sets to these data; and to assess differences in utility scores for key preventive health indicators. A cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interview survey (March-June 2011) with 5,555 adults. Respondents rated their impairment (none, moderate, severe problems) across five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety or depression) using the validated EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life instrument. Utility score indexes were derived using the Australian, UK and USA value sets. Forty per cent of adults reported pain and discomfort while 3 % indicated problems with self-care. Approximately one in six had limitations with mobility, usual activities or anxiety or depression. The three value sets performed similarly in discriminating differences based on most characteristics, and clinically meaningful differences were seen for age, body weight, physical activity and daily smoking. There were no differences in utility scores for gender. This is the first study to report general population findings for the Australian EQ-5D-3L value set. Overall, the Australian value set performed comparably with other value sets commonly used in the Australian population; however, differences were observed. Results will enable further refinement to health and economic studies in an Australian-specific context.
引用
收藏
页码:2375 / 2381
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]
[Anonymous], GUID METH TECHN APPR
[2]
[Anonymous], 2008, Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
[3]
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012, CENS 2011 TABL BUILD
[4]
Baxter J., 2011, Families in Regional, Rural, and Remote Australia
[5]
The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[6]
Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[7]
MULTIATTRIBUTE HEALTH-STATUS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS - HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX [J].
FEENY, D ;
FURLONG, W ;
BOYLE, M ;
TORRANCE, GW .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1995, 7 (06) :490-502
[8]
A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments [J].
Hawthorne, G ;
Richardson, J ;
Day, NA .
ANNALS OF MEDICINE, 2001, 33 (05) :358-370
[9]
Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index [J].
Luo, N ;
Johnson, JA ;
Shaw, JW ;
Feeny, D ;
Coons, SJ .
MEDICAL CARE, 2005, 43 (11) :1078-1086
[10]
International Comparisons in Valuing EQ-5D Health States: A Review and Analysis [J].
Norman, Richard ;
Cronin, Paula ;
Viney, Rosalie ;
King, Madeleine ;
Street, Deborah ;
Ratcliffe, Julie .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (08) :1194-1200