Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States
- 327 Downloads
The aim of this study was to establish an EQ-5D-3L value set using the time trade-off (TTO) method to elicit the health preferences of the general Singaporean population.
The values of 80 EQ-5D-3L health states were elicited from a general Singaporean population sample using a TTO method. In face-to-face interviews, participants were asked to value a block of ten health states. Various linear regression models were examined to assess for goodness of fit to the data, at both aggregate and individual levels. Prediction precision was assessed in terms of mean absolute error (MAE), and numbers of prediction errors larger than 0.10 and 0.20. Prediction consistency and bias were also assessed.
A total of 456 participants provided data for this study. The N3 model without a constant estimated using the aggregate data exhibited the best fit of the data, predicted values with the least bias, and generated logically consistent values for all 243 EQ-5D-3L health states. The MAE was 0.1137, and 35 of 80 predicted values had errors less than 0.10 in absolute magnitude. Based on this model, the utility values ranged from 0.854 for state 11121 to −0.769 for state 33333.
The EQ-5D-3L value set can be estimated using the TTO method in the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Singapore. Although the estimation precision is not optimal, the health-state preference values generated in this study are useful to health service researchers in the country before estimates with smaller errors are available.
KeywordsValuation Study Random Effect Ordinary Less Square Estimator Indifference Point Prediction Precision
This study was funded by the National University of Singapore.
Contribution of Authors
Nan Luo designed the study; Pei Wang analyzed the data; Nan Luo and Pei Wang drafted the manuscript; and Julian Thumboo, Yee-Wei Lim and Hubertus Vrijhoef contributed the interpretation of the results and commented on and/or edited the drafts of the manuscript. Nan Luo acts as guarantor for the overall content.
Conflicts of Interest
- 22.Gao, F, Ng GY, Cheung YB, et al. The Singapore English and Chinese version of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:206–13.Google Scholar
- 23.Abdin E, Subramanian M, Vaingankar JA, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: population norms for the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(10):2983–91.Google Scholar
- 27.Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 82–134.Google Scholar
- 28.Samuelsen CH, Augestad LA, Stavem K, et al. Anchoring effects in the lead-time time trade-off. In: Proceedings of the 29th EuroQol Plenary Meeting, 13–15 Sept 2012. The Doelen Convert and Congress Hall, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 34.Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.Google Scholar
- 36.Department of Statistics Singapore. Census of population 2010 statistical release 1: demographic characteristics, education, language and religion. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census10_stat_release1.html. Accessed 15 Jul 2013.
- 39.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
- 41.BMJ Group Blogs. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. “One can die, but cannot fall ill”. A Survey on how costs may affect choice of therapy in Singapore. http://blogs.bmj.com/spcare/2012/04/17/one-can-die-but-cannot-fall-ill-a-survey-on-how-costs-may-affect-choice-of-therapy-in-singapore/. Accessed 15 May 2013.
- 42.Pakir A. Bilingual education with English as an official language: sociocultural implications. In: Alatis JE, Tan AH, editors. Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1999.Google Scholar