对健康相关生活质量的偏好:是否因年龄而异?关于EQ-5D测量的系统文献综述。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s10198-025-01766-7
Alhanouf Alabbad, Madeleine Cochrane, Paul Mark Mitchell
{"title":"对健康相关生活质量的偏好:是否因年龄而异?关于EQ-5D测量的系统文献综述。","authors":"Alhanouf Alabbad, Madeleine Cochrane, Paul Mark Mitchell","doi":"10.1007/s10198-025-01766-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a commonly used method in Health technology assessment (HTA) that utilises generic metrics such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALY is a measure derived from individuals' preferences for different health states, with these preferences represented as utility values. However, utility values may differ by age, raising equity concerns in healthcare allocation. Given the globally ageing demographic, understanding the age-utility relationship becomes essential.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of age on utility values derived from the EQ-5D, a widely used instrument in CUA that contributes to calculating QALYs by assessing five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our search used the comprehensive pearl growing approach and database searching. We included studies that analysed the effect of age on EQ-5D utility values in the general population. We excluded qualitative, non-English, and non-EQ-5D instrument studies. Quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and a narrative synthesis was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 28 studies reviewed, primarily from Europe and the Americas, the average age of participants ranged from 34.1 and 47.7 years. Around 46% (n = 13) associated older age with lower utility values; 28% (n = 8) with higher utility; and 25% (n = 7) found no consistent relationship between age and utility.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Age was identified as a critical factor affecting EQ-5D-derived utility values, with implications for the equitable distribution of healthcare resources. These findings corroborate previous research on utility measurement across different instruments, highlighting the ethical and policy issues due to age-related utility differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":" ","pages":"1275-1291"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7617589/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferences for health-related quality of life: do they vary by age? A systematic literature review on the EQ-5D measure.\",\"authors\":\"Alhanouf Alabbad, Madeleine Cochrane, Paul Mark Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-025-01766-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a commonly used method in Health technology assessment (HTA) that utilises generic metrics such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALY is a measure derived from individuals' preferences for different health states, with these preferences represented as utility values. However, utility values may differ by age, raising equity concerns in healthcare allocation. Given the globally ageing demographic, understanding the age-utility relationship becomes essential.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of age on utility values derived from the EQ-5D, a widely used instrument in CUA that contributes to calculating QALYs by assessing five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our search used the comprehensive pearl growing approach and database searching. We included studies that analysed the effect of age on EQ-5D utility values in the general population. We excluded qualitative, non-English, and non-EQ-5D instrument studies. Quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and a narrative synthesis was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 28 studies reviewed, primarily from Europe and the Americas, the average age of participants ranged from 34.1 and 47.7 years. Around 46% (n = 13) associated older age with lower utility values; 28% (n = 8) with higher utility; and 25% (n = 7) found no consistent relationship between age and utility.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Age was identified as a critical factor affecting EQ-5D-derived utility values, with implications for the equitable distribution of healthcare resources. These findings corroborate previous research on utility measurement across different instruments, highlighting the ethical and policy issues due to age-related utility differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1275-1291\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7617589/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01766-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01766-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:成本效用分析(CUA)是卫生技术评估(HTA)中常用的方法,它利用诸如质量调整生命年(QALYs)等通用指标。QALY是根据个人对不同健康状态的偏好得出的一种衡量标准,这些偏好表示为效用值。然而,效用值可能因年龄而异,这引起了对医疗分配公平性的关注。鉴于全球人口老龄化,理解年龄-效用关系变得至关重要。目的:本系统综述旨在探讨年龄对EQ-5D效用值的影响,EQ-5D是CUA中广泛使用的工具,通过评估健康的五个维度:流动性、自我护理、日常活动、疼痛/不适和焦虑/抑郁,有助于计算QALYs。方法:采用综合珍珠种植法和数据库检索法。我们纳入了分析年龄对一般人群中EQ-5D效用值影响的研究。我们排除了定性、非英语和非eq - 5d工具研究。质量评估使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的工具,并使用叙述综合。结果:在回顾的28项研究中,主要来自欧洲和美洲,参与者的平均年龄从34.1岁到47.7岁不等。约46% (n = 13)认为年龄越大,效用值越低;28% (n = 8)具有较高的效用;25% (n = 7)的人发现年龄和效用之间没有一致的关系。讨论:年龄被确定为影响eq - 5d衍生效用值的关键因素,对医疗保健资源的公平分配具有影响。这些发现证实了之前关于不同工具的效用测量的研究,突出了由于年龄相关的效用差异而引起的伦理和政策问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preferences for health-related quality of life: do they vary by age? A systematic literature review on the EQ-5D measure.

Introduction: Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a commonly used method in Health technology assessment (HTA) that utilises generic metrics such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALY is a measure derived from individuals' preferences for different health states, with these preferences represented as utility values. However, utility values may differ by age, raising equity concerns in healthcare allocation. Given the globally ageing demographic, understanding the age-utility relationship becomes essential.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of age on utility values derived from the EQ-5D, a widely used instrument in CUA that contributes to calculating QALYs by assessing five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.

Methods: Our search used the comprehensive pearl growing approach and database searching. We included studies that analysed the effect of age on EQ-5D utility values in the general population. We excluded qualitative, non-English, and non-EQ-5D instrument studies. Quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and a narrative synthesis was used.

Results: Of the 28 studies reviewed, primarily from Europe and the Americas, the average age of participants ranged from 34.1 and 47.7 years. Around 46% (n = 13) associated older age with lower utility values; 28% (n = 8) with higher utility; and 25% (n = 7) found no consistent relationship between age and utility.

Discussion: Age was identified as a critical factor affecting EQ-5D-derived utility values, with implications for the equitable distribution of healthcare resources. These findings corroborate previous research on utility measurement across different instruments, highlighting the ethical and policy issues due to age-related utility differences.

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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics: • Basics of health economic approaches and methods • Pharmacoeconomics • Health Care Systems • Pricing and Reimbursement Systems • Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements. Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
×
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