A framework for extending the health-related quality adjusted life year by combining instruments.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Pub Date : 2025-03-24 DOI:10.1186/s12955-025-02352-4
Brendan Mulhern, Akanksha Akanksha, Richard Norman, Mina Bahrampour, Peiwen Jiang, Deborah Street, Rosalie Viney
{"title":"A framework for extending the health-related quality adjusted life year by combining instruments.","authors":"Brendan Mulhern, Akanksha Akanksha, Richard Norman, Mina Bahrampour, Peiwen Jiang, Deborah Street, Rosalie Viney","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02352-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current measurement systems focus mostly on health, and not on multiple constructs of quality of life outcomes (for example health and social outcomes) together. This means we don't capture all that is of value to those receiving treatments, and to society more broadly. Recent research has explored how to extend the quality adjusted life year (QALY) beyond a narrow focus on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) aiming to improve the allocation of scarce health and social care resources. Measures of different constructs, including the EuroQol-Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB), and different versions of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) and ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP), have been developed. Another approach to extending the health focused QALY is to combine existing descriptive systems with different foci into a single instrument. This has the advantage of using available information and allowing trade-offs between the domains of the descriptive systems to be made explicit. The aim of this paper is to propose a framework to guide this approach and outline the methodological process for generating broader descriptive systems. The first section of the paper explains the framework for combining existing instruments and discusses advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include increasing measurement sensitivity to the wider combined quality of life (QoL) impacts of many interventions and using value sets encompassing preferences that are based on trade-offs across diverse constructs. This enables values informed by impacts on broader QoL with relevance across diverse populations, to be used. Disadvantages include theoretical limitations linked to the constructs of QoL included, and practical difficulties combining instruments. The second section of the paper describes the methodological process for generating combined descriptive systems. This includes how to identify which constructs of QoL could be included, and a description of the mixed methods work required to generate a descriptive system that is psychometrically valid, and appropriate for valuation. Combining constructs of QoL from existing instruments offers a promising way to extend the QALY that differs to developing instruments de novo. Future research can use the framework outlined to develop combined instruments and explore the feasibility and wider applicability of the approach, and the use of the instruments generated in resource allocation decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11934538/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02352-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current measurement systems focus mostly on health, and not on multiple constructs of quality of life outcomes (for example health and social outcomes) together. This means we don't capture all that is of value to those receiving treatments, and to society more broadly. Recent research has explored how to extend the quality adjusted life year (QALY) beyond a narrow focus on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) aiming to improve the allocation of scarce health and social care resources. Measures of different constructs, including the EuroQol-Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB), and different versions of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) and ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP), have been developed. Another approach to extending the health focused QALY is to combine existing descriptive systems with different foci into a single instrument. This has the advantage of using available information and allowing trade-offs between the domains of the descriptive systems to be made explicit. The aim of this paper is to propose a framework to guide this approach and outline the methodological process for generating broader descriptive systems. The first section of the paper explains the framework for combining existing instruments and discusses advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include increasing measurement sensitivity to the wider combined quality of life (QoL) impacts of many interventions and using value sets encompassing preferences that are based on trade-offs across diverse constructs. This enables values informed by impacts on broader QoL with relevance across diverse populations, to be used. Disadvantages include theoretical limitations linked to the constructs of QoL included, and practical difficulties combining instruments. The second section of the paper describes the methodological process for generating combined descriptive systems. This includes how to identify which constructs of QoL could be included, and a description of the mixed methods work required to generate a descriptive system that is psychometrically valid, and appropriate for valuation. Combining constructs of QoL from existing instruments offers a promising way to extend the QALY that differs to developing instruments de novo. Future research can use the framework outlined to develop combined instruments and explore the feasibility and wider applicability of the approach, and the use of the instruments generated in resource allocation decision making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Trends in racial and ethnic disparities in the health-related quality of life of older adults with breast cancer: a SEER-MHOS national database study. A framework for extending the health-related quality adjusted life year by combining instruments. Concept analysis of diabetes-related quality of life. Fatigue is distinct from sleepiness and negatively impacts individuals living with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): results from qualitative research of individuals with OSA. Trajectory of parental health-related quality of life after neonatal hospitalization - a prospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1