重新审视健康国家的效用——比死亡更糟糕:问题依然存在。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-16 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231201147
Michał Jakubczyk
{"title":"重新审视健康国家的效用——比死亡更糟糕:问题依然存在。","authors":"Michał Jakubczyk","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231201147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In valuation studies of the EQ-5D-5L instrument, the composite time tradeoff method (cTTO) is often used to elicit preferences. In cTTO, some health states are considered worse than dead (WTD) and are assigned negative utility values. However, these negative values correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO is insufficiently sensitive. A recent threshold explanation has been offered to account for the lack of correlation: because the severity threshold beyond which a state is considered WTD differs between respondents, the correlation should be studied for individual respondents clustered by the number of WTD states. The results obtained in such a threshold approach were interpreted to disprove the insensitivity of the cTTO method.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To scrutinize the threshold explanation and test whether it indeed refutes the insensitivity of cTTO.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study uses data from the EQ-5D-5L Polish valuation study, which includes cTTO responses from 1,510 participants, each of whom evaluated 10 EQ-5D-5L states. The correlation analysis and threshold approach are repeated to confirm the results from previous studies. The data are then modified in 2 contrasting ways. First, negative utilities are randomly reshuffled to test whether the threshold approach can capture cTTO insensitivity. Second, individual-level regressions are used to simulate negative values to ensure they correlate with severity at the individual respondent level, verifying whether the overall severity-utility correlation should be observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First, reshuffling negative utilities does not change the results of the threshold approach. Hence, the threshold explanation fails to prove cTTO sensitivity. Second, when sensitivity was introduced on an individual level, a significant overall correlation between severity and negative utility arose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>cTTO is insensitive to severity for WTD states.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>For the composite time tradeoff method, the utility values of health states worse than dead correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO has insufficient sensitivity.Recently, a so-called threshold explanation was offered for the lack of correlation.I show why the threshold explanation fails and why the composite time tradeoff is indeed insensitive for worse-than-dead states.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"875-885"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains.\",\"authors\":\"Michał Jakubczyk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231201147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In valuation studies of the EQ-5D-5L instrument, the composite time tradeoff method (cTTO) is often used to elicit preferences. In cTTO, some health states are considered worse than dead (WTD) and are assigned negative utility values. However, these negative values correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO is insufficiently sensitive. A recent threshold explanation has been offered to account for the lack of correlation: because the severity threshold beyond which a state is considered WTD differs between respondents, the correlation should be studied for individual respondents clustered by the number of WTD states. The results obtained in such a threshold approach were interpreted to disprove the insensitivity of the cTTO method.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To scrutinize the threshold explanation and test whether it indeed refutes the insensitivity of cTTO.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study uses data from the EQ-5D-5L Polish valuation study, which includes cTTO responses from 1,510 participants, each of whom evaluated 10 EQ-5D-5L states. The correlation analysis and threshold approach are repeated to confirm the results from previous studies. The data are then modified in 2 contrasting ways. First, negative utilities are randomly reshuffled to test whether the threshold approach can capture cTTO insensitivity. Second, individual-level regressions are used to simulate negative values to ensure they correlate with severity at the individual respondent level, verifying whether the overall severity-utility correlation should be observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First, reshuffling negative utilities does not change the results of the threshold approach. Hence, the threshold explanation fails to prove cTTO sensitivity. Second, when sensitivity was introduced on an individual level, a significant overall correlation between severity and negative utility arose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>cTTO is insensitive to severity for WTD states.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>For the composite time tradeoff method, the utility values of health states worse than dead correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO has insufficient sensitivity.Recently, a so-called threshold explanation was offered for the lack of correlation.I show why the threshold explanation fails and why the composite time tradeoff is indeed insensitive for worse-than-dead states.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"875-885\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231201147\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231201147","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在EQ-5D-5L仪器的评估研究中,经常使用复合时间权衡法(cTTO)来引发偏好。在cTTO中,一些健康状态被认为比死亡(WTD)更糟糕,并被赋予负效用值。然而,这些负值与状态严重程度的相关性很差,这表明cTTO不够敏感。最近提出了一种阈值解释来解释缺乏相关性的原因:由于一个州被视为WTD的严重程度阈值在受访者之间不同,因此应根据WTD州的数量对个别受访者的相关性进行研究。在这种阈值方法中获得的结果被解释为反驳了cTTO方法的不敏感性。目的:仔细审查阈值解释,并测试它是否确实反驳了cTTO的不敏感性。方法:该研究使用了EQ-5D-5L波兰评估研究的数据,该研究包括1510名参与者的cTTO反应,每个参与者评估了10个EQ-5D-5L状态。重复相关分析和阈值方法以证实先前研究的结果。然后以两种不同的方式对数据进行修改。首先,对负效用进行随机重组,以测试阈值方法是否可以捕获cTTO不敏感。其次,个人水平的回归用于模拟负值,以确保它们与个人受访者水平的严重程度相关,从而验证是否应观察到总体严重程度效用相关性。结果:首先,重组负效用不会改变阈值方法的结果。因此,阈值解释未能证明cTTO的敏感性。其次,当敏感性被引入个人层面时,严重程度和负面效用之间出现了显著的整体相关性。结论:cTTO对WTD状态的严重程度不敏感。亮点:对于复合时间权衡方法,健康状态比死亡状态差的效用值与状态严重程度的相关性较差,这表明cTTO的敏感性不足。最近,对于缺乏相关性提出了一种所谓的阈值解释。我展示了为什么阈值解释失败,以及为什么复合时间权衡确实对比死状态更糟糕的状态不敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains.

Background: In valuation studies of the EQ-5D-5L instrument, the composite time tradeoff method (cTTO) is often used to elicit preferences. In cTTO, some health states are considered worse than dead (WTD) and are assigned negative utility values. However, these negative values correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO is insufficiently sensitive. A recent threshold explanation has been offered to account for the lack of correlation: because the severity threshold beyond which a state is considered WTD differs between respondents, the correlation should be studied for individual respondents clustered by the number of WTD states. The results obtained in such a threshold approach were interpreted to disprove the insensitivity of the cTTO method.

Aim: To scrutinize the threshold explanation and test whether it indeed refutes the insensitivity of cTTO.

Methods: The study uses data from the EQ-5D-5L Polish valuation study, which includes cTTO responses from 1,510 participants, each of whom evaluated 10 EQ-5D-5L states. The correlation analysis and threshold approach are repeated to confirm the results from previous studies. The data are then modified in 2 contrasting ways. First, negative utilities are randomly reshuffled to test whether the threshold approach can capture cTTO insensitivity. Second, individual-level regressions are used to simulate negative values to ensure they correlate with severity at the individual respondent level, verifying whether the overall severity-utility correlation should be observed.

Results: First, reshuffling negative utilities does not change the results of the threshold approach. Hence, the threshold explanation fails to prove cTTO sensitivity. Second, when sensitivity was introduced on an individual level, a significant overall correlation between severity and negative utility arose.

Conclusion: cTTO is insensitive to severity for WTD states.

Highlights: For the composite time tradeoff method, the utility values of health states worse than dead correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO has insufficient sensitivity.Recently, a so-called threshold explanation was offered for the lack of correlation.I show why the threshold explanation fails and why the composite time tradeoff is indeed insensitive for worse-than-dead states.

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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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