在美国价值评估中根据患者体验(而非 QALYs)衡量疗效。

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-11-02 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1
Maksat Jumamyradov, Benjamin M Craig
{"title":"在美国价值评估中根据患者体验(而非 QALYs)衡量疗效。","authors":"Maksat Jumamyradov, Benjamin M Craig","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A key challenge in value assessment is how to summarize effectiveness, particularly the impact of interventions on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One approach is to quantify the gains in HRQoL and life expectancy together as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); however, this approach has faced various criticisms regarding its potential discriminatory aspects toward persons with disabilities, older adults, and the most vulnerable individuals in society.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Instead of QALYs, we provide an alternative approach that summarizes HRQoL gains from the perspective of its stakeholders (e.g., patients, parents, and caregivers) using an \"experience\" scale. On an experience scale, a positive value signifies an experience better than having no experience at all, while a negative value indicates an experience worse than having no experience. To illustrate the merits of this approach, we examine US preferences on the relief of child health problems, namely a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with kaizen tasks and alternatives described using the EQ-5D-Y-3L.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using this approach, we demonstrate the differences in perspectives between parents (N = 179), mothers (N = 99), and fathers (N = 80) of children younger than 18 years of age, as well as the feasibility of this patient-centered approach using a brief DCE survey of less than 100 respondents each (and without QALYs). Specifically, we found that mothers place a higher value on the child's feelings than fathers. The results also suggest other differences between the perspectives of mothers and fathers, but these differences were not statistically significant (p-values < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We put forth that future value assessments may summarize gains in HRQoL on a patient experience scale (i.e., experience scale from the patient perspective) to inform decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Effectiveness Based on Patient Experience (Instead of QALYs) in US Value Assessments.\",\"authors\":\"Maksat Jumamyradov, Benjamin M Craig\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A key challenge in value assessment is how to summarize effectiveness, particularly the impact of interventions on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One approach is to quantify the gains in HRQoL and life expectancy together as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); however, this approach has faced various criticisms regarding its potential discriminatory aspects toward persons with disabilities, older adults, and the most vulnerable individuals in society.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Instead of QALYs, we provide an alternative approach that summarizes HRQoL gains from the perspective of its stakeholders (e.g., patients, parents, and caregivers) using an \\\"experience\\\" scale. On an experience scale, a positive value signifies an experience better than having no experience at all, while a negative value indicates an experience worse than having no experience. To illustrate the merits of this approach, we examine US preferences on the relief of child health problems, namely a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with kaizen tasks and alternatives described using the EQ-5D-Y-3L.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using this approach, we demonstrate the differences in perspectives between parents (N = 179), mothers (N = 99), and fathers (N = 80) of children younger than 18 years of age, as well as the feasibility of this patient-centered approach using a brief DCE survey of less than 100 respondents each (and without QALYs). Specifically, we found that mothers place a higher value on the child's feelings than fathers. The results also suggest other differences between the perspectives of mothers and fathers, but these differences were not statistically significant (p-values < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We put forth that future value assessments may summarize gains in HRQoL on a patient experience scale (i.e., experience scale from the patient perspective) to inform decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:价值评估的一个主要挑战是如何总结有效性,特别是干预措施对患者健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)的影响。一种方法是将患者的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和预期寿命的提高一起量化为质量调整生命年(QALYs);然而,这种方法因其对残疾人、老年人和社会中最弱势人群的潜在歧视性而受到各种批评:方法:我们提供了一种替代 QALYs 的方法,即使用 "体验 "量表从利益相关者(如患者、父母和护理人员)的角度总结 HRQoL 的收益。在 "体验 "量表中,正值表示比没有体验更好的体验,负值表示比没有体验更差的体验。为了说明这种方法的优点,我们研究了美国在缓解儿童健康问题方面的偏好,即使用 EQ-5D-Y-3L 进行离散选择实验(DCE),其中包括改善任务和替代方案:利用这种方法,我们展示了 18 岁以下儿童的父母(N = 179)、母亲(N = 99)和父亲(N = 80)在观点上的差异,以及这种以患者为中心的方法的可行性。具体而言,我们发现母亲比父亲更重视孩子的感受。结果还表明母亲和父亲的观点存在其他差异,但这些差异在统计学上并不显著(P 值小于 0.05):我们提出,未来的价值评估可通过患者体验量表(即从患者角度出发的体验量表)总结患者在 HRQoL 方面的收益,为决策提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measuring Effectiveness Based on Patient Experience (Instead of QALYs) in US Value Assessments.

Background: A key challenge in value assessment is how to summarize effectiveness, particularly the impact of interventions on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One approach is to quantify the gains in HRQoL and life expectancy together as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); however, this approach has faced various criticisms regarding its potential discriminatory aspects toward persons with disabilities, older adults, and the most vulnerable individuals in society.

Methods: Instead of QALYs, we provide an alternative approach that summarizes HRQoL gains from the perspective of its stakeholders (e.g., patients, parents, and caregivers) using an "experience" scale. On an experience scale, a positive value signifies an experience better than having no experience at all, while a negative value indicates an experience worse than having no experience. To illustrate the merits of this approach, we examine US preferences on the relief of child health problems, namely a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with kaizen tasks and alternatives described using the EQ-5D-Y-3L.

Results: Using this approach, we demonstrate the differences in perspectives between parents (N = 179), mothers (N = 99), and fathers (N = 80) of children younger than 18 years of age, as well as the feasibility of this patient-centered approach using a brief DCE survey of less than 100 respondents each (and without QALYs). Specifically, we found that mothers place a higher value on the child's feelings than fathers. The results also suggest other differences between the perspectives of mothers and fathers, but these differences were not statistically significant (p-values < .05).

Conclusions: We put forth that future value assessments may summarize gains in HRQoL on a patient experience scale (i.e., experience scale from the patient perspective) to inform decision-making.

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
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Systematic Literature Review. Effects and Costs of Hepatitis C Virus Elimination for the Whole Population in China: A Modelling Study. MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation-A Tutorial. Different Models, Same Results: Considerations When Choosing Between Approaches to Model Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric-Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care. Evidence Following Conditional NICE Technology Appraisal Recommendations: A Critical Analysis of Methods, Quality and Risk of Bias.
×
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