Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies: A Systematic Review

被引:26
作者
Engel, Lidia [1 ,2 ]
Bansback, Nick [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Bryan, Stirling [2 ,3 ]
Doyle-Waters, Mary M. [2 ]
Whitehurst, David G. T. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Simon Fraser Univ, Fac Hlth Sci, 8888 Univ Dr, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
[2] Vancouver Coastal Hlth Res Inst, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Evaluat, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Sch Populat & Publ Hlth, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[4] St Pauls Hosp, Ctr Hlth Evaluat & Outcome Sci, Vancouver, BC, Canada
关键词
exclusion criteria; health state valuation; preference-based measures; quality-adjusted life year; TIME TRADE-OFF; NONPARAMETRIC BAYESIAN METHOD; ESTIMATING QUALITY WEIGHTS; PREFERENCE-BASED MEASURE; POPULATION-BASED VALUES; SOCIAL VALUE SET; UNITED-STATES; EQ-5D; SF-6D; SAMPLE;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X15595365
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Health state valuation data are often excluded from studies that aim to provide a nationally representative set of values for preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The purpose was to provide a systematic examination of exclusion criteria used in the derivation of societal scoring algorithms for preference-based HRQoL instruments. Methods. Data sources included MEDLINE, official instrument websites, and publication reference lists. Analyses that used data from national valuation studies and reported a scoring algorithm for a generic preference-based HRQoL instrument were included. Data extraction included exclusion criteria and associated justifications, exclusion rates, the characteristics of excluded respondents, and analyses that explored consequential implications of exclusion criteria on the respective national tariff. Results. Seventy-six analyses (from 70 papers) met the inclusion criteria. In addition to being excluded for logical inconsistencies, respondents were often excluded if they valued fewer than 3 health states or if they gave the same value to all health states. Numerous other exclusion criteria were identified, with varying degrees of justification, often based on an assumption that respondents did not understand the task or as a consequence of the chosen statistical modeling techniques. Rates of exclusion ranged from 0% to 65%, with excluded respondents more likely to be older, less educated, and less healthy. Limitations included that the database search was confined to MEDLINE; study selection focused on national valuation studies that used standard gamble, time tradeoff, and/or visual analog scale techniques; and only English-language studies were included. Conclusion. Exclusion criteria used in national valuation studies vary considerably. Further consideration is necessary in this important and influential area of research, from the design stage to the reporting of results.
引用
收藏
页码:798 / 810
页数:13
相关论文
共 85 条
[21]   Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states [J].
Craig, Benjamin M. ;
Busschbach, Jan J. V. .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2011, 30 (05) :1057-1063
[22]   TOWARD A MORE UNIVERSAL APPROACH IN HEALTH VALUATION [J].
Craig, Benjamin M. ;
Busschbach, Jan J. V. .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2011, 20 (07) :864-875
[23]   Estimating the SF-6D Value Set for a Population-Based Sample of Brazilians [J].
Cruz, Luciane N. ;
Camey, Suzi A. ;
Hoffmann, Juliana F. ;
Rowen, Donna ;
Brazier, John E. ;
Fleck, Marcelo P. ;
Polanczyk, Carisi A. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (05) :S108-S114
[24]   Understanding health state valuations: A qualitative analysis of respondents' comments [J].
Devlin, NJ ;
Hansen, P ;
Selai, C .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2004, 13 (07) :1265-1277
[25]   Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations - a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs [J].
Devlin, NJ ;
Hansen, P ;
Kind, P ;
Williams, A .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 12 (07) :529-544
[26]   To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? [J].
Dolan, P ;
Roberts, J .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2002, 54 (06) :919-929
[27]   Modelling valuations for EQ-5D health states - An alternative model using differences in valuations [J].
Dolan, P ;
Roberts, J .
MEDICAL CARE, 2002, 40 (05) :442-446
[28]  
Dolan P, 1997, J Health Serv Res Policy, V2, P160
[29]   Whose preferences count? [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1999, 19 (04) :482-486
[30]   Inconsistency and health state valuations [J].
Dolan, P ;
Kind, P .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1996, 42 (04) :609-615