United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5
Madeleine T King, D A Revicki, R Norman, F Müller, R C Viney, A S Pickard, D Cella, J W Shaw
{"title":"United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.","authors":"Madeleine T King, D A Revicki, R Norman, F Müller, R C Viney, A S Pickard, D Cella, J W Shaw","doi":"10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.33.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":"49-63"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire.

Methods: A US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient.

Results: 2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.33.

Conclusions: This value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.

美国癌症治疗总八维度功能评估价值集(FACT-8D),一种基于癌症特异性偏好的生活质量工具。
目的:开发一个反映美国(US)普通人群对癌症治疗功能评估(FACT)八维度基于偏好的多属性效用工具(FACT- 8d)所描述的健康状态偏好的值集,该工具源自FACT- general癌症特异性健康相关生活质量(HRQL)问卷。方法:对美国在线小组进行配额抽样,以获得按性别、年龄(≥18岁)、种族和民族具有代表性的一般人群样本。采用离散选择实验(DCE)对健康状态进行评价。评估任务涉及在FACT-8D HRQL维度和生存(生命年)的不同水平所描述的成对健康状态(选择集)之间进行选择。DCE包括100个选择集;每个被调查者被随机分配16个选择集。数据分析使用条件logit回归参数化,以适应质量调整生命年框架,并对不代表美国普通人群的社会人口变量进行加权。优选权重计算为hrql水平系数与生存系数之比。结果:2562名小组成员选择参与,其中2462人(96%)完成了至少一组选择,2357人(92%)完成了16组选择。疼痛和恶心的效用权重最大,工作和睡眠的效用权重更适中,而悲伤、担忧和支持的效用权重最小。在维度中,更严重的HRQL级别通常与更大的权重相关。生成了一种偏好加权算法,用于从对FACT-General问卷的回答中估计美国公用事业。最差运行状况状态的值为-0.33。结论:该值集为FACT-8D定义的健康状态提供了美国人口效用,用于评估肿瘤治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open 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 important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信