Cargando…

Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review

Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, man...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Touré, Moustapha, Kouakou, Christian R. C., Poder, Thomas G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8122477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33919471
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428
_version_ 1783692627577667584
author Touré, Moustapha
Kouakou, Christian R. C.
Poder, Thomas G.
author_facet Touré, Moustapha
Kouakou, Christian R. C.
Poder, Thomas G.
author_sort Touré, Moustapha
collection PubMed
description Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions’ and levels’ selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8122477
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81224772021-05-16 Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review Touré, Moustapha Kouakou, Christian R. C. Poder, Thomas G. Int J Environ Res Public Health Systematic Review Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions’ and levels’ selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores. MDPI 2021-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8122477/ /pubmed/33919471 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Touré, Moustapha
Kouakou, Christian R. C.
Poder, Thomas G.
Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title_full Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title_short Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review
title_sort dimensions used in instruments for qaly calculation: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8122477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33919471
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428
work_keys_str_mv AT touremoustapha dimensionsusedininstrumentsforqalycalculationasystematicreview
AT kouakouchristianrc dimensionsusedininstrumentsforqalycalculationasystematicreview
AT poderthomasg dimensionsusedininstrumentsforqalycalculationasystematicreview