澳大利亚新的 EQ-5D-5L 数值集对效用评分有何影响?澳大利亚骨科协会全国关节置换登记数据分析。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-15 DOI:10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0
Ilana N Ackerman, Richard Norman, Ian A Harris, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Stephen Gill, Peter Lewis, Sze-Ee Soh
{"title":"澳大利亚新的 EQ-5D-5L 数值集对效用评分有何影响?澳大利亚骨科协会全国关节置换登记数据分析。","authors":"Ilana N Ackerman, Richard Norman, Ian A Harris, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Stephen Gill, Peter Lewis, Sze-Ee Soh","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets ('previous' and 'new' value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of -0.30 (compared with -0.68 previously) and fewer patients had 'worse-than-dead' quality of life (score < 0.00) before surgery. Mean pre-operative scores were 0.21 (THR), 0.19 (TKR), and 0.17 (TSR) units higher with the new value set, and mean post-operative scores were 0.11-0.14 units higher. The new value set resulted in smaller effect sizes for the THR (1.08 versus 1.23) and TKR cohorts (0.86 versus 0.92). There was moderate-to-good overall agreement (coefficients: 0.70-0.80), but concordance varied by time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although acceptable agreement was evident, the new Australian value set produces less extreme negative utility scores and markedly higher group-level scores. Transition to reporting new EQ-5D-5L utility scores will require accompanying explanation to signal measurement modifications rather than better quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339144/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Ilana N Ackerman, Richard Norman, Ian A Harris, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Stephen Gill, Peter Lewis, Sze-Ee Soh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets ('previous' and 'new' value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of -0.30 (compared with -0.68 previously) and fewer patients had 'worse-than-dead' quality of life (score < 0.00) before surgery. Mean pre-operative scores were 0.21 (THR), 0.19 (TKR), and 0.17 (TSR) units higher with the new value set, and mean post-operative scores were 0.11-0.14 units higher. The new value set resulted in smaller effect sizes for the THR (1.08 versus 1.23) and TKR cohorts (0.86 versus 0.92). There was moderate-to-good overall agreement (coefficients: 0.70-0.80), but concordance varied by time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although acceptable agreement was evident, the new Australian value set produces less extreme negative utility scores and markedly higher group-level scores. Transition to reporting new EQ-5D-5L utility scores will require accompanying explanation to signal measurement modifications rather than better quality of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339144/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着健康状况评估方法的进步,一些国家可能会开发新的价值集。量化现有价值集与新价值集之间变化的影响对于指导有关效用评分解释、报告以及与已公布评分比较的决策至关重要:本研究旨在利用大规模国家登记数据,研究澳大利亚新的 EQ-5D-5L 数值集如何影响接受关节置换术患者的效用评分:本次分析采用了澳大利亚骨科协会全国关节置换登记处的数据。纳入了2018年至2022年期间所有具有术前和术后6个月EQ-5D-5L数据的初级全髋关节(THR)、膝关节(TKR)和肩关节置换(TSR)手术。使用 2013 年和 2023 年澳大利亚值集(分别为 "以前 "和 "新 "值集)生成效用评分,并对每个关节置换队列进行描述性分析。使用一致性相关系数和布兰-阿尔特曼图评估两套效用评分之间的一致性:17576例THR、23010例TKR和1667例TSR手术的EQ-5D-5L数据可用。新值集产生的 EQ-5D-5L 实用性最低得分为-0.30(之前为-0.68),术前生活质量 "差于死亡"(得分<0.00)的患者人数较少。采用新值集后,术前平均得分分别提高了 0.21 个单位(THR)、0.19 个单位(TKR)和 0.17 个单位(TSR),术后平均得分提高了 0.11-0.14 个单位。新值集使 THR 组(1.08 对 1.23)和 TKR 组(0.86 对 0.92)的效应大小较小。总体一致性为中等至良好(系数:0.70-0.80),但不同时间点的一致性有所不同:结论:尽管一致性尚可,但澳大利亚的新值集产生的极端负效用分数较少,组水平分数明显较高。在过渡到报告新的 EQ-5D-5L 实用性评分时,需要进行相应的解释,以表明测量方法有所改变,而不是生活质量有所提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Background: With advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement.

Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets ('previous' and 'new' value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: EQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of -0.30 (compared with -0.68 previously) and fewer patients had 'worse-than-dead' quality of life (score < 0.00) before surgery. Mean pre-operative scores were 0.21 (THR), 0.19 (TKR), and 0.17 (TSR) units higher with the new value set, and mean post-operative scores were 0.11-0.14 units higher. The new value set resulted in smaller effect sizes for the THR (1.08 versus 1.23) and TKR cohorts (0.86 versus 0.92). There was moderate-to-good overall agreement (coefficients: 0.70-0.80), but concordance varied by time point.

Conclusion: Although acceptable agreement was evident, the new Australian value set produces less extreme negative utility scores and markedly higher group-level scores. Transition to reporting new EQ-5D-5L utility scores will require accompanying explanation to signal measurement modifications rather than better quality of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Social Costs of Smoking in the Czech Republic. Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities. Onasemnogene Abeparvovec Gene Therapy and Risdiplam for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis. The Impact of the Approach to Accounting for Age and Sex in Economic Models on Predicted Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. Measuring the Impact of Medical Cannabis Law Adoption on Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Costs: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis, 2003–2022
×
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