The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events.

PURPOSE: The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events. METHODS: Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021-2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test-retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity. RESULTS: The sample included  234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for 'Mobility'. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs. CONCLUSION: The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

The Validity of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) Instrument in Parents of Children With and Without Health Conditions.

BACKGROUND:  The EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) instrument has been developed to measure the health and wellbeing of care-recipients and their caregivers for use in economic evaluation.The EQ-HWB-S has nine items, and pilot UK preference weights have now been developed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the validity of the instrument in parents of children with and without health conditions. METHODS: EQ-HWB-S data were sourced from an Australian paediatric multi-instrument comparison study. We analysed the baseline characteristics and response distribution of the EQ-HWB-S items. Assessment of known-group validity was conducted for EQ-HWB-S items, level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, including partial effects. Known-group analyses included three child health variables and where caregivers reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had impacted their wellbeing. We included analyses across gender, controlled for child and parent demographic variables, and compared scores across child health conditions. RESULTS:  Item responses were distributed as expected, with higher skew for mobility and activities. Parents experienced high levels of exhaustion. We detected significant differences between groups for level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, as hypothesised; all tests were significant (p < 0.001), with moderate effect sizes (effect sizes were slightly higher for female than male parents). The regression analysis identified significantly different EQ-HWB-S scores for child health samples compared with the general population after controlling for demographic variables. Differences were observed between child health conditions. CONCLUSION: The EQ-HWB-S is a useful instrument to measure parent quality of life for economic evaluation in this population. Data were limited to one time point; further research should investigate the instrument's sensitivity to change and test-retest reliability in this population.

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Testing 2 Alternative Time Trade-Off Methods for Valuation of Children's Health States.

OBJECTIVES: Composite time trade-off (cTTO) values for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states tend to be high, raising concerns about sensitivity particularly for mild or moderate health states. We conceptualized and pilot tested 2 alternative time trade-off (TTO) variants: the caregiver TTO (CGTTO) and lag-time TTO (LTTO). METHODS: We collected CGTTO and LTTO data in China for 10 EQ-5D-Y-3L health states and compared the resulting values, respondent feedback, and task completion times with those from an EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation study using cTTO. We also examined how age and parental status of respondents could affect TTO values. RESULTS: A total of 304 participants were included in this study. Overall, cTTO showed statistically better results in all feedback questions. On a 5-point Likert scale where lower score means greater agreement, the mean (SD) feedback scores for cTTO, LTTO, and CGTTO were 1.18 (0.58), 1.45 (0.91), and 1.65 (1.02) for "easy to understand"; 1.45 (0.91), 1.94 (1.08), and 1.86 (1.24) for "easy to differentiate"; and 3.61 (1.29), 2.97 (1.33), and 3.02 (1.50) for "difficult to decide," respectively. The mean (SD) TTO values of all 10 states were 0.463 (0.494), 0.387 (0.555), and 0.123 (0.710) for cTTO, LTTO, and CGTTO, respectively. The effects of age and parental status on TTO values differed by the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: LTTO and CGTTO produce values with good characteristics and merit further investigation. Researchers need to be aware of the differences in design and values when using the TTO method to value children's health states.

Using Age-Specific Values for Pediatric HRQoL in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Is There a Problem to Be Solved? If So, How?

Value sets for the EQ-5D-Y-3L published to date appear to have distinctive characteristics compared with value sets for corresponding adult instruments: in many cases, the value for the worst health state is higher and there are fewer values < 0. The aim of this paper is to consider how and why values for child and adult health differ; and what the implications of that are for the use of EQ-5D-Y-3L values in economic evaluations to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. We posit four potential explanations for the differences in values: (a) The wording of severity labels may mean the worst problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L are descriptively less severe than those on the EQ-5D-5L; (b) Adults may genuinely consider that children are less badly affected than adults by descriptively similar health issues. That is, for any given health problem, adult respondents in valuation studies consider children's overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on average to be higher than that for adults; (c) Values are being sought by eliciting adults' stated preferences for HRQoL in another person, rather than in themselves (regardless of whether the 'other person' concerned is a child); and (d) The need to elicit preferences for child HRQoL that are anchored at dead = 0 invokes special considerations regarding children's survival. Existing evidence does not rule out the possibility that (c) and (d) exert an upward bias in values. We consider the implications of that for the interpretation and use of values for pediatric HRQoL. Alternative methods for valuing children's HRQoL in a manner that is not 'age specific' are possible and may help to avoid issues of non-comparability. Use of these methods would place the onus on health technology assessment bodies to reflect any special considerations regarding child quality-adjusted life-year gains.

Understanding the measurement relationship between EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr.

PURPOSE: Many generic patient-reported instruments are available for the measurement of health outcomes, including EQ-5D-5L, and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Assessing their measurement characteristics informs users about the consistency between, and limits of, evidence produced. The aim was to assess the measurement relationship between the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system and value sets, the PROMIS-29 and PROPr (PROMIS value set). METHODS: Data were extracted from a cross-sectional survey administering measures of quality of life online in Australia. Descriptive analysis, agreement and construct validity assessment methods were used to compare instruments at the item, domain and value set level. RESULTS: In total, 794 Australians completed the survey. Convergent validity analysis found that similar dimensions across instruments were highly correlated (> 0.50), but the PROMIS-29 assesses additional health concepts not explicitly covered by EQ-5D (sleep and fatigue). Known-group assessment found that EQ-5D-5L and PROPr were able to detect those with and without a condition (ES range 0.78-0.83) but PROPr could more precisely detect differing levels of self-reported health. Both instruments were sensitive to differences in levels of pain. DISCUSSION: There is some consistency in what the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr measure. Differences between value set characteristics can be linked to differences what is measured and the valuation approaches used. This has implications for the use of each in assessing health outcomes, and the results can inform decisions about which instrument should be used in which context.

Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L.

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children's health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this paper is to compare different anchoring methods, summarise the characteristics of the value sets they produce, and outline key considerations for analysts. Three anchoring methods were compared using data from published studies: (1) rescaling using the mean value for the worst health state; (2) linear mapping; and (3) hybrid modelling. The worst state rescaling value set had the largest range. The worst state rescaling and linear mapping value sets preserved the relative importance of the dimensions from the DCE, whereas the hybrid model value set did not. Overall, the predicted values from the hybrid model value set were more closely aligned with the cTTO values. These findings are relatively generalisable. Deciding upon which anchoring approach to use is challenging, as there are numerous considerations. Where cTTO data are collected for more than one health state, anchoring on the worst health state will arguably be suboptimal. However, the final choice of approach may require value judgements to be made. Researchers should seek input from relevant stakeholders when commencing valuation studies to help guide decisions and should clearly set out their rationale for their preferred anchoring approach in study outputs.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 2: How to Measure Quality of Life and Utility? (QoL) [Podcast].

How do we measure quality of life and utility of interventions? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Nancy Devlin about incorporating quality of life in value assessment. Prof. Devlin is professor of health economics at the University of Melbourne. Her past roles include Director of Research at the Office of Health Economics (OHE) London, Professor of Health Economics at City University of London, and she has been director of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). She is the Chair of the Board of the EuroQol Research Foundation, the international research organization which has developed and maintains the EQ-5D patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument. Prof Devlin explains the value of the patient voice and how it can be measured and taken into account when considering the value of healthcare interventions.

Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Valuing children's health states for use in economic evaluations is globally relevant and is of particular relevance in jurisdictions where a cost-utility analysis is the preferred form of analysis for decision making. Despite this, the challenges with valuing child health mean that there are many remaining questions for debate about the approach to elicitation of values. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the methods used to value children's health states and the specific issues that arise in the use of these methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases to identify studies published in English since 1990 that used preference elicitation methods to value child and adolescent (under 18 years of age) health states. Eligibility criteria comprised valuation studies concerning both child-specific patient-reported outcome measures and child health states defined in other ways, and methodological studies of valuation approaches that may or may not have yielded a value set algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 77 eligible studies were identified from which data on country setting, aims, condition (general population or clinically specific), sample size, age of respondents, the perspective that participants were asked to adopt, source of values (respondents who completed the preference elicitation tasks) and methods questions asked were extracted. Extracted data were classified and evaluated using narrative synthesis methods. The studies were classified into three groups: (1) studies comparing elicitation methods (n = 30); (2) studies comparing perspectives (n = 23); and (3) studies where no comparisons were presented (n = 26); selected studies could fall into more than one group. Overall, the studies varied considerably both in methods used and in reporting. The preference elicitation tasks included time trade-off, standard gamble, visual analogue scaling, rating/ranking, discrete choice experiments, best-worst scaling and willingness to pay elicited through a contingent valuation. Perspectives included adults' considering the health states from their own perspective, adults taking the perspective of a child (own, other, hypothetical) and a child/adolescent taking their own or the perspective of another child. There was some evidence that children gave lower values for comparable health states than did adults that adopted their own perspective or adult/parents that adopted the perspective of children. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in reporting limited the conclusions that can be formed about which methods are most suitable for eliciting preferences for children's health and the influence of differing perspectives and values. Difficulties encountered in drawing conclusions from the data (such as lack of consensus and poor reporting making it difficult for users to choose and interpret available values) suggest that reporting guidelines are required to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of studies that value children's health using preference-based techniques.

Sugammadex, neostigmine and postoperative pulmonary complications: an international randomised feasibility and pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reduces residual neuromuscular blockade after anaesthesia, potentially preventing postoperative pulmonary complications. However, definitive evidence is lacking. We therefore conducted a feasibility and pilot trial for a large randomised controlled trial of sugammadex, neostigmine, and postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years having elective or expedited abdominal or intrathoracic surgery were recruited in Australia and Hong Kong. Perioperative care was at the discretion of clinicians, except for the use of rocuronium and/or vecuronium for neuromuscular blockade and the randomised intervention (sugammadex or neostigmine) for reversal. Feasibility measurements included recruitment, crossover, acceptability, completeness, and workload. Trial coordinator feedback was systematically sought. Patient-reported quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L score. The primary pilot outcome was the incidence of new pulmonary complications up to hospital discharge (or postoperative day 7 if still in hospital). RESULTS: Among 150 eligible patients, 120 consented to participate (recruitment rate 80%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 73 to 86%). The randomised intervention was administered without crossover to 115 of 117 patients who received reversal (98%, 95% CI 94 to 100%). The protocol was acceptable or highly acceptable to the anaesthetist in 108 of 116 cases (93%, 95% CI 87 to 97%; missing = 4). Four patients of the 120 patients were lost to follow-up at 3 months (3.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 8.3%). Case report forms were complete at 3 months for all remaining patients. The median time to complete trial processes was 3.5 h (range 2.5-4.5 h). Trial coordinators reported no barriers to trial processes. Patients were aged 64 (standard deviation 11) years, 70 (58%) were male and 50 (42%) were female, and planned surgeries were thoracic (23 [19%]), upper abdominal (41 [34%]), and lower abdominal (56 [47%]). The primary outcome was observed in 5 (8.5%) of the 59 sugammadex patients and 5 (8.2%) of the 61 neostigmine patients (odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.67). CONCLUSIONS: A large international randomised controlled trial of sugammadex, neostigmine and postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients having abdominal and intrathoracic surgery, including collection of cost-effectiveness evidence for Health Technology Appraisal, is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620001313921 ) on December 7, 2020. www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380645&isReview=true .

Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

BACKGROUND: An important question in the valuation of children's health is whether the preferences of younger individuals should be captured within value sets for measures that are aimed at them. This depends on whether younger individuals can complete valuation exercises and whether their preferences differ from those of adults. This study compared the preferences of adults and adolescents for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using latent scale values elicited from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: An online DCE survey, comprising 15 pairwise choices, was provided to samples of UK adults and adolescents (aged 11-17 y). Adults considered the health of a 10-year-old child, whereas adolescents considered their own health. Mixed logit models were estimated, and comparisons were made using relative attribute importance (RAI) scores and a pooled model. RESULTS: In total, 1000 adults and 1005 adolescents completed the survey. For both samples, level 3 in pain/discomfort was most important, and level 2 in self-care the least important, based on the relative magnitudes of coefficients. The RAI scores (normalized on self-care) indicated that adolescents gave less weight relative to adults to usual activities (1.18 v. 1.51; P < 0.05), pain/discomfort (1.77 v. 3.12; P < 0.01), and anxiety/depression (1.64 vs. 2.65; P < 0.01). The pooled model indicated evidence of differences between the two samples in both levels in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. LIMITATIONS: The perspective of the DCE task differed between the 2 samples, and no data were collected to anchor the DCE data to generate value sets. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents could complete the DCE, and their preferences differed from those of adults taking a child perspective. It is important to consider whether their preferences should be incorporated into value sets.

An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values.

OBJECTIVES: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can be used to obtain latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y, but these require anchoring at 0 = dead to meet the conventions of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. The primary aim of this study is to compare four preference elicitation methods for obtaining anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values. METHODS: Four methods were tested: visual analogue scale (VAS), DCE (with a duration attribute), lag-time time trade-off (TTO) and the location-of-dead (LOD) approach. In computer-assisted personal interviews, UK general public respondents valued EQ-5D-3L health states from an adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y health states from a 10-year-old child perspective. Respondents completed valuation tasks using all four methods, under both perspectives. RESULTS: 349 interviews were conducted. Overall, respondents gave lower values under the adult perspective compared to the child perspective, with some variation across methods. The mean TTO value for the worst health state (33333) was about equal to dead in the child perspective and worse than dead in the adult perspective. The mean VAS rescaled value for 33333 was also higher in the child perspective. The DCE produced positive child perspective values and negative adult perspective values, though the models were not consistent. The LOD median rescaled value for 33333 was negative under both perspectives and higher in the child perspective. DISCUSSION: There was broad agreement across methods. Potential criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method are presented. We conclude by discussing the decision-making circumstances under which utilities and QALY estimates for children and adults need to be commensurate to achieve allocative efficiency.

A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions.

BACKGROUND: Standard methods for eliciting the preference data upon which 'value sets' are based generally have in common an aim to 'uncover' people's preferences by asking them to evaluate a subset of health states, then using their responses to infer their preferences over all dimensions and levels. An alternative approach is to ask people directly about the relative importance to them of the dimensions, levels and interactions between them. This paper describes a new stated preference approach for directly eliciting personal utility functions (PUFs), and reports a pilot study to test its feasibility for valuing the EQ-5D. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed, designed to directly elicit PUFs from general public respondents via computer-assisted personal interviews, with a focus on helping respondents to reflect and deliberate on their preferences. The questionnaire was piloted in England. RESULTS: Seventy-six interviews were conducted in December 2015. Overall, pain/discomfort and mobility were found to be the most important of the EQ-5D dimensions. The ratings for intermediate improvements in each dimension show heterogeneity, both within and between respondents. Almost a quarter of respondents indicated that no EQ-5D health states are worse than dead. DISCUSSION: The PUF approach appears to be feasible, and has the potential to yield meaningful, well-informed preference data from respondents that can be aggregated to yield a value set for the EQ-5D. A deliberative approach to health state valuation also has the potential to complement and develop existing valuation methods. Further refinement of some elements of the approach is required.

New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: An application to English data.

Value sets for the EQ-5D-5L are required to facilitate its use in estimating quality-adjusted life years. An international protocol has been developed to guide the collection of stated preference data for this purpose and has been used to generate EQ-5D-5L valuation data for England. The aim of this paper is report the innovative methods used for modelling those data to obtain a value set. Nine hundred and ninety-six members of the English general public completed time trade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. We estimate models, with and without interactions, using DCE data only, TTO data only, and TTO/DCE data combined. TTO data are interpreted as both left and right censored. Heteroskedasticity and preference heterogeneity between individuals are accounted for. We use Bayesian methods in the econometric analysis. The final model is chosen based on the deviance information criterion (DIC). Censoring and taking account of heteroskedasticity have important effects on parameter estimation. For DCE data only, TTO data only, and DCE/TTO data combined, models with parameters for all dimensions and levels perform best, as judged by the DIC. Taking account of heterogeneity improves fit, and the multinomial model reports the lowest DIC. This paper presents approaches that suit observed characteristics of EQ-5D-5L valuation data and recognise respondents' preference heterogeneity. The methods described are potentially relevant to other value set studies.

Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England.

A new version of the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D-5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ-5D-5L data in decision-making. The study design followed an international research protocol. Randomly selected members of the English general public completed 10 time trade-off and 7 discrete choice experiment tasks in face-to-face interviews. A 20-parameter hybrid model was used to combine time trade-off and discrete choice experiment data to generate values for the 3,125 EQ-5D-5L health states. Valuation data are available for 996 respondents. Face validity of the data has been demonstrated, with more severe health states generally given lower values. Problems with pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression received the greatest weight. Compared to the existing EQ-5D-3L value set, there are considerably fewer "worse than dead" states (5.1%, compared with over one third), and the minimum value is higher. Values range from -0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ-5D-5L both in England and internationally. Quality-adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.

The effect of religion on the perception of health states among adults in the United Arab Emirates: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate how religion may affect the perception of health states among adults in the United Arab Emirates and the implications for research on self-reported health and quality of life and the use of values in cost-effectiveness analysis. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of short-structured interviews with adult Emiratis carried out by a market research agency.The COREQ criteria have been used where appropriate to guide the reporting of our findings. SETTING: Participants were recruited from shopping malls and other public places in the cities of Al Ain and Abu Dhabi. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred adult Emiratis broadly representative of the Emirati population in terms of age and gender. RESULTS: Eighty one per cent of participants said that their perception of health states was influenced by their spiritual or religious beliefs. The two overarching themes that seemed to explain or classify these influences were 'fatalism' and 'preservation of life'. Subthemes included powerlessness to change what is preordained by God, fear of disability (particularly diminished mobility) and appreciation of health and life and the requirement to look after one's health. A final theme was that of acceptance, with respondents expressing a willingness to endure suffering and disability with patience in the expectation of rewards in the hereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasise the need for further work to establish locally relevant value sets for Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and elsewhere for use in health technology assessment decision-making, rather than relying on value sets from other regions.