Title |
A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values
|
---|---|
Published in |
Quality of Life Research, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11136-017-1768-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
E. M. Camacho, G. Shields, K. Lovell, P. A. Coventry, A. P. Morrison, L. M. Davies |
Abstract |
Economic evaluations of mental health interventions often measure health benefit in terms of utility values derived from the EQ-5D. For the five-level version of the EQ-5D, there are two methods of estimating utility [crosswalk and stated preference (5L-SP)]. This paper explores potential impacts for researchers and decision-makers when comparing utility values derived from either method in the specific context of mental health. Baseline EQ-5D-5L data from three large randomised controlled trials of interventions for mental health conditions were analysed. Utility values were generated using each method. Mean utility values were compared using a series of t tests on pooled data and subgroups. Scenario analyses explored potential impacts on cost-effectiveness decisions. EQ-5D data were available for 1399 participants. The mean utility value for each trial was approximately 0.08 higher when estimated using the 5L-SP approach compared to crosswalk (p < 0.0001). The difference was greatest among people reporting extreme anxiety/depression (mean utility 5L-SP 0.309, crosswalk 0.084; difference = 0.225; p < 0.0001). Identical improvements in health status were associated with higher costs to gain one QALY with the 5L-SP approach; this is more pronounced when improvements are across all domains compared to improvements on the anxiety/depression domain only. The two approaches produce significantly different utility values in people with mental health conditions. Resulting differences in cost per QALY estimates suggest that thresholds of cost-effectiveness may also need to be reviewed. Researchers and decision-makers should exercise caution when comparing or synthesising data from trials of mental health interventions using different utility estimation approaches. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 7 | 58% |
Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
United States | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
Researcher | 13 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
Other | 13 | 14% |
Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 15 | 16% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 15% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 10% |
Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
Other | 13 | 14% |
Unknown | 27 | 29% |