EQ-VT和基于人行横道的EQ-5D-5L值集的正面比较

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Henry Bailey, Bram Roudijk
{"title":"EQ-VT和基于人行横道的EQ-5D-5L值集的正面比较","authors":"Henry Bailey, Bram Roudijk","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00954-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No systematic country-level comparison has been undertaken between crosswalk- and EQ-VT-derived EQ-5D-5L value sets. Crosswalk values can differ from EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets owing to valuation protocols, changes in societal preferences over time, and a change in the label of the highest level on mobility in moving from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L. This study aimed to compare the five-level (5L) crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets to explore differences between them at the country level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the countries with both time trade-off (TTO)- or discrete choice experiment (DCE) + TTO-based EQ-5D-3L value sets and EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets, 19 pairs of EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L sets were found. For each of these EQ-5D-3L value sets, 5L crosswalk sets were developed and compared with the corresponding national EQ-5D-5L valuation set using correlation analysis, ranges, values of specific states, Bland-Altman plots, and scatter plots. Three of the countries have EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L valuation data for the same set of respondents. These three cases were analyzed separately, as they provide a \"true\" test of the differences between the two value sets.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Spearman correlation between the crosswalk and valuation sets ranged from 0.831 to 0.989, being below 0.9 in 11 pairs of value sets. The difference in the percentage of negative values ranged from +22.5 to -18.8%, and the difference in the ranges within each pair of value sets ranged from +42.7 to -18.4%. The average mean absolute difference of values (crosswalk versus EQ-VT) was 0.149. This was below 0.1 in only 5 of the 19 EQ-VT/crosswalk set pairs. For the states comprising one level 5 and four level 1s, no country preserved its ranking of importance of the five dimensions in moving from crosswalk to EQ-VT values. Most of the Bland-Altman plots and scatterplots revealed a pattern that placed states with the highest level on mobility as a separate band from other states.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>All of the criteria showed poor agreement between the crosswalk- and EQ-VT-based value sets. The differences in labels for the most extreme response option for the mobility dimension leads to substantial differences in values between these value sets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets should not be used interchangeably, except under circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to conduct a direct EQ-5D-5L valuation study.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":"725-736"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12170785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Head-On Comparison of EQ-VT- and Crosswalk-Based EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.\",\"authors\":\"Henry Bailey, Bram Roudijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-025-00954-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No systematic country-level comparison has been undertaken between crosswalk- and EQ-VT-derived EQ-5D-5L value sets. Crosswalk values can differ from EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets owing to valuation protocols, changes in societal preferences over time, and a change in the label of the highest level on mobility in moving from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L. This study aimed to compare the five-level (5L) crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets to explore differences between them at the country level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the countries with both time trade-off (TTO)- or discrete choice experiment (DCE) + TTO-based EQ-5D-3L value sets and EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets, 19 pairs of EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L sets were found. For each of these EQ-5D-3L value sets, 5L crosswalk sets were developed and compared with the corresponding national EQ-5D-5L valuation set using correlation analysis, ranges, values of specific states, Bland-Altman plots, and scatter plots. Three of the countries have EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L valuation data for the same set of respondents. These three cases were analyzed separately, as they provide a \\\"true\\\" test of the differences between the two value sets.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Spearman correlation between the crosswalk and valuation sets ranged from 0.831 to 0.989, being below 0.9 in 11 pairs of value sets. The difference in the percentage of negative values ranged from +22.5 to -18.8%, and the difference in the ranges within each pair of value sets ranged from +42.7 to -18.4%. The average mean absolute difference of values (crosswalk versus EQ-VT) was 0.149. This was below 0.1 in only 5 of the 19 EQ-VT/crosswalk set pairs. For the states comprising one level 5 and four level 1s, no country preserved its ranking of importance of the five dimensions in moving from crosswalk to EQ-VT values. Most of the Bland-Altman plots and scatterplots revealed a pattern that placed states with the highest level on mobility as a separate band from other states.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>All of the criteria showed poor agreement between the crosswalk- and EQ-VT-based value sets. The differences in labels for the most extreme response option for the mobility dimension leads to substantial differences in values between these value sets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets should not be used interchangeably, except under circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to conduct a direct EQ-5D-5L valuation study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"725-736\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12170785/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00954-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/11 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/s40258-025-00954-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:没有对人行横道和eq - vt衍生的EQ-5D-5L值集进行系统的国家级比较。人行横道的价值可能不同于基于eq - v的EQ-5D-5L价值集,这是由于评估协议、随着时间的推移社会偏好的变化,以及从EQ-5D-3L到EQ-5D-5L的最高流动性水平标签的变化。本研究旨在比较五层(5L)人行横道和EQ-VT值集,以探讨它们在国家层面上的差异。方法:从同时存在时间权衡(TTO)或离散选择实验(DCE) +基于时间权衡(TTO)的EQ-5D-3L值集和基于eq - v的EQ-5D-5L值集的国家中,发现了19对EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L值集。对于每一个EQ-5D-3L价值集,我们开发了5L人行横道价值集,并使用相关分析、范围、特定状态值、Bland-Altman图和散点图将其与相应的国家EQ-5D-5L价值集进行比较。其中三个国家对同一组受访者拥有EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L估值数据。这三种情况分别进行了分析,因为它们提供了对两个值集之间差异的“真实”测试。结果:人行横道与评价集的Spearman相关系数在0.831 ~ 0.989之间,有11对评价集的Spearman相关系数小于0.9。负值百分比的差异从+ 22.5%到-18.8%不等,每对值集范围的差异从+42.7到-18.4%不等。平均绝对差值(人行横道与EQ-VT)为0.149。在19对EQ-VT/人行横道组中,只有5对低于0.1。对于包含一个5级和四个15级的州,没有一个国家保留了从人行横道到EQ-VT值的五个维度的重要性排名。大多数Bland-Altman图和散点图揭示了一种模式,即将流动性水平最高的州与其他州分开作为一个单独的带。讨论:所有的标准都显示基于人行横道和eq - vt的值集之间的一致性很差。流动性维度的最极端响应选项的标签差异导致这些值集之间的值存在实质性差异。结论:人行横道和EQ-VT值不应该互换使用,除非在不可能或不可行进行直接EQ-5D-5L评估研究的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Head-On Comparison of EQ-VT- and Crosswalk-Based EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.

Background: No systematic country-level comparison has been undertaken between crosswalk- and EQ-VT-derived EQ-5D-5L value sets. Crosswalk values can differ from EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets owing to valuation protocols, changes in societal preferences over time, and a change in the label of the highest level on mobility in moving from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L. This study aimed to compare the five-level (5L) crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets to explore differences between them at the country level.

Methods: From the countries with both time trade-off (TTO)- or discrete choice experiment (DCE) + TTO-based EQ-5D-3L value sets and EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets, 19 pairs of EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L sets were found. For each of these EQ-5D-3L value sets, 5L crosswalk sets were developed and compared with the corresponding national EQ-5D-5L valuation set using correlation analysis, ranges, values of specific states, Bland-Altman plots, and scatter plots. Three of the countries have EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L valuation data for the same set of respondents. These three cases were analyzed separately, as they provide a "true" test of the differences between the two value sets.

Results: Spearman correlation between the crosswalk and valuation sets ranged from 0.831 to 0.989, being below 0.9 in 11 pairs of value sets. The difference in the percentage of negative values ranged from +22.5 to -18.8%, and the difference in the ranges within each pair of value sets ranged from +42.7 to -18.4%. The average mean absolute difference of values (crosswalk versus EQ-VT) was 0.149. This was below 0.1 in only 5 of the 19 EQ-VT/crosswalk set pairs. For the states comprising one level 5 and four level 1s, no country preserved its ranking of importance of the five dimensions in moving from crosswalk to EQ-VT values. Most of the Bland-Altman plots and scatterplots revealed a pattern that placed states with the highest level on mobility as a separate band from other states.

Discussion: All of the criteria showed poor agreement between the crosswalk- and EQ-VT-based value sets. The differences in labels for the most extreme response option for the mobility dimension leads to substantial differences in values between these value sets.

Conclusions: Crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets should not be used interchangeably, except under circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to conduct a direct EQ-5D-5L valuation study.

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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信