Advertisement

Outcome Assessment for Cost-Utility Evaluations: SF-6D vs. EQ-5D

  • Rikke Søgaard
  • Terkel Christiansen
  • Finn Bjarke Christensen
Chapter

Abstract

What was formerly known as medicine has now become health care, an amalgam of several disciplines, including health economics. The role of health economics is fairly straightforward, namely to facilitate priority-setting under the objective of maximizing population health. For that purpose, cost-utility evaluations, providing a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for different choices, have become popular. If cost-utility evaluations are to be run alongside clinical trials, trialists have to append an instrument for the measurement of generic, preference-based outcomes. The objective of this chapter is to provide some basis for the choice of instrument to assess generic, preference-based outcomes in clinical trials conducted in low back pain.

Keywords

Oswestry Disability Index Minimally Important Difference Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Health Utility Index QALY Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Kernick DP (1998) Has health economics lost its way? BMJ 317(7152):197–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddard G (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fanshel S, Bush J (1970) A health status index and its application to health service outcomes. Oper Res 18:1021–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosser RM, Watts VC (1972) The measurement of hospital output. Int J Epidemiol 1(4):361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP (1982) Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 30(6):1043–1069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sintonen H (1981) An approach to measuring and valuing health states. Soc Sci Med [Med Econ] 15(2):55–65Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R, McNiel H (1997) The Australian Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument. Monash University Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C (1999) A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4(3):174–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware JE (1993) SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Nimrod, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K (1998) Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1115–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21(2):271–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EuroQol group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kind P (1996) The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spiker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philidelphia, pp 191–201Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996) The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 5(2):141–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The MVH group (1995) The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. University of York, YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Springer; 2007Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Emerson SS, Gray DT, Jarvik JG (2002) The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ 11(1):71–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14(10):1000–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, Skeith K, Vincent D (2000) Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39(7):783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN (2005) Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 14(5):1321–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2005) Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility ­measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14(6):1523–1532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME (2003) Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 41(7):791–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13(9):873–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Søgaard R, Christensen F, Bünger C, Videbæk T, Christiansen T (2009) Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health 12(4):606–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cronbach L, Furby L (1970) How we should measure “change” – or should we? Psychol Bull 74(1):68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME (2001) A comparison of preference-based health status tools in patients with muscoloskeletal disease. In: Norinder A, Pedersen KM, Roos P (eds) Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. IHE, Lund, pp 235–243Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330(7502):1239–1245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A (2007) Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 25(5):365–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rikke Søgaard
    • 1
  • Terkel Christiansen
  • Finn Bjarke Christensen
  1. 1.CAST–Centre for Applied Health Services Research and Technology AssessmentUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense CDenmark

Personalised recommendations