1 / 10

Modelling Valuations for the EQ-5D Health States: An Alternative Approach

This study explores an alternative model for valuing EQ-5D health states using differences in valuations. The results suggest that the new model has better predictive ability compared to the original model, but there are important differences between them. The lack of consensus on the ordering of states has implications for policy decisions.

beverlycamacho
Download Presentation

Modelling Valuations for the EQ-5D Health States: An Alternative Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modelling valuations for the EQ-5D health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations Jennifer Roberts and Paul Dolan Sheffield Health Economics Group

  2. The EQ-5D • Mobility • Self Care • Usual Activities • Pain/Discomfort • Anxiety/Depression • 3 levels defining problems on each dimension (none, some, a lot).

  3. Motivation • the original EQ-5D study • preference based single index • 42 states (from 243) valued by TTO • i = 2997, j = 12, n = 35,964 • ‘tariff’ produced (Dolan 1997) • predicts mean health state values quite well • despite • enormous variation across individual valuations of states

  4. Descriptive Statistics for TTO Values

  5. Differences in Health States

  6. Agreement with pair wise ranking of states

  7. The data for the new tariff model • all respondents valued 33333 plus 11 others • 2 very mild (n ~ 1200) • 3 each from mild, moderate and severe (n ~ 750) • consider each respondents value of each state as the difference from their value for 33333 • i = 2997, j = 11, n = 32,967 • random effects model used

  8. Tariff Results

  9. Comparing the old and new tariffs

  10. Conclusion • Lack of consensus on ordering of states has implications for policy decisions … • Two models are similar in structure and findings • New model has better predictive ability • Some important differences arise • difference in health change given by the two tariffs could be as much as 0.245 • Which (if any) is the right model?

More Related