Health utilities used in oncology cost-utility analyses: a registry-based analysis.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ting Zhou, Zhiyuan Chen, Brittany Humphries, Feng Xie
{"title":"Health utilities used in oncology cost-utility analyses: a registry-based analysis.","authors":"Ting Zhou, Zhiyuan Chen, Brittany Humphries, Feng Xie","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03856-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03856-0","RegionNum":3,"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

Background: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.

Objective: To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.

Methods: We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.

Results: A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).

Conclusion: Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.

肿瘤学成本效用分析中使用的健康效用:基于登记册的分析。
背景:健康效用是进行成本效用分析(CUA)的关键输入指标:健康效用是进行成本效用分析(CUA)时使用的一个关键输入,该分析越来越多地用于为资源分配决策提供信息:目的:确定肿瘤学成本效用分析中使用的健康效用的来源和获取方法:我们使用塔夫茨成本效益分析注册表来识别 1976 年至 2021 年间在 Medline 上发表的肿瘤学 CUA。符合条件的CUAs必须包含肿瘤学人群(基于ICD-10编码)、报告健康效用并以英文发表。对引用的健康效用参考文献进行追踪,以确定最初的健康效用研究和效用激发方法。对纳入的 CUAs 的特点进行了总结,并对得出健康效用的方法进行了比较:结果:共发现了 1512 份肿瘤学领域的 CUA。大多数 CUA(n = 1428,94.4%)基于模型。乳腺和女性生殖器官恶性肿瘤是最常见的考虑人群(n = 424,28.0%)。在这些 CUAs 中,确定了 8714 项健康效用。经审查,有 2096 项(24.1%)健康效用无法追踪来源。在余下的 6618 项健康效用中,1718 项(26.0%)来自嵌入 CUA 的原始健康效用研究,其中最常使用的是专家意见(n = 547,31.8%)或 EQ-5D(n = 479,27.9%)。在引用的 4900 项外部研究的健康效用(74.0%)中,最常使用的是标准赌博法(n = 1258,25.7%)或 EQ-5D(n = 1190,24.3%):结论:已发布的健康效用值广泛应用于肿瘤CUAs,尤其是基于模型的分析。然而,健康效用的识别、选择和使用并不理想。
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
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
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