Cargando…
QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care
BACKGROUND: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7364560/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32678021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05521-x |
_version_ | 1783559854204387328 |
---|---|
author | Wichmann, Anne B. Goltstein, Lia C. M. J. Obihara, Ndidi J. Berendsen, Madeleine R. Van Houdenhoven, M. Morrison, R. Sean Johnston, Bridget M. Engels, Y. |
author_facet | Wichmann, Anne B. Goltstein, Lia C. M. J. Obihara, Ndidi J. Berendsen, Madeleine R. Van Houdenhoven, M. Morrison, R. Sean Johnston, Bridget M. Engels, Y. |
author_sort | Wichmann, Anne B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY’s future use in palliative care. METHODS: A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. RESULTS: 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs ‘Q’ component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the ‘Q’ part, leaving the linear clock time in the ‘LY’ component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the ‘Q’ component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7364560 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73645602020-07-20 QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care Wichmann, Anne B. Goltstein, Lia C. M. J. Obihara, Ndidi J. Berendsen, Madeleine R. Van Houdenhoven, M. Morrison, R. Sean Johnston, Bridget M. Engels, Y. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY’s future use in palliative care. METHODS: A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. RESULTS: 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs ‘Q’ component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the ‘Q’ part, leaving the linear clock time in the ‘LY’ component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the ‘Q’ component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package. BioMed Central 2020-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7364560/ /pubmed/32678021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05521-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wichmann, Anne B. Goltstein, Lia C. M. J. Obihara, Ndidi J. Berendsen, Madeleine R. Van Houdenhoven, M. Morrison, R. Sean Johnston, Bridget M. Engels, Y. QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title | QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title_full | QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title_fullStr | QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title_full_unstemmed | QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title_short | QALY-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
title_sort | qaly-time: experts’ view on the use of the quality-adjusted life year in cost-effectiveness analysis in palliative care |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7364560/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32678021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05521-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wichmannanneb qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT goltsteinliacmj qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT obiharandidij qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT berendsenmadeleiner qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT vanhoudenhovenm qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT morrisonrsean qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT johnstonbridgetm qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT engelsy qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare AT qalytimeexpertsviewontheuseofthequalityadjustedlifeyearincosteffectivenessanalysisinpalliativecare |