Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 8/2014

01.10.2014 | Brief Communication

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

verfasst von: Susan Clemens, Nelufa Begum, Catherine Harper, Jennifer A. Whitty, Paul A. Scuffham

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRef Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRef Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.PubMedCrossRef Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker and R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Kluver Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker and R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Kluver Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Scuffham, P. A., et al. (2008). The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: A review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(4), 297–310.PubMedCrossRef Scuffham, P. A., et al. (2008). The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: A review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(4), 297–310.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.CrossRef Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRef Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Queensland Health. (2012). The health of Queenslanders 2012: advancing good health. Fourth report of the Chief Health Officer [internet]. Queensland Health: Brisbane. (Cited 2013 May 7). Queensland Health. (2012). The health of Queenslanders 2012: advancing good health. Fourth report of the Chief Health Officer [internet]. Queensland Health: Brisbane. (Cited 2013 May 7).
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies. Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May). Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May).
Metadaten
Titel
A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA
verfasst von
Susan Clemens
Nelufa Begum
Catherine Harper
Jennifer A. Whitty
Paul A. Scuffham
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2014
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2014

Quality of Life Research 8/2014 Zur Ausgabe