Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30|
Simon Pickard, A.
|Citation:||PharmacoEconomics, 2018; 36(2):225-238|
|Publisher:||Springer International Publishing|
|Madeleine T. King, Rosalie Viney, A. Simon Pickard, Donna Rowen, Neil K. Aaronson, John E. Brazier, David Cella, Daniel S. J. Costa, Peter M. Fayers, Georg Kemmler, Helen McTaggart-Cowen, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Stuart Peacock, Deborah J. Street, Tracey A. Young, Richard Norman, On behalf of the MAUCa Consortium (N. Aaronson ... R. Norman ... et al.)|
|Abstract:||Background: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D. Methods: An Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy. Results: A total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death. Conclusions: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively.|
|Description:||Published online: 21 December 2017|
|Rights:||© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.|
|Appears in Collections:||Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications|
Files in This Item:
|hdl_115454.pdf||Published version||1.14 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.