In this sub-set , it was found that method ological differences contributed to variation in utility values .
Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods .
Within direct methods , there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies ( st and ard gamble [ SG ] vs time trade-off ) ; but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods .
When comparing indirect methods , the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D , but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states .
When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model , consideration of the utility elicitation method is important , as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD
AIMS Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) , but values can vary depending on the method used .
The aim of this systematic literature review ( SLR ) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD .
The Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Generic Utility-Based Measures
Purpose : To evaluate the use of utility-based generic quality of life measures for establishing the minimally clinical ly important difference ( MCID ) . Background : Utility-based quality of life measures place levels of wellness on a continuum anchored by death ( 0.00 ) and optimum function ( 1.00 ) . Preference measurement studies are used to define the meaning of points along the continuum . Health states that differ by less than 0.03 units can not be discriminated by panels of judges as different from one another . Thus , 0.03 is a reasonable MCID for these measures . Method : Three published studies of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD ) reported data on the Quality of Well-being Scale ( QWB ) before and after pulmonary rehabilitation . One of the studies also r and omly assigned patients to lung volume reduction surgery or to maximal medical therapy . These patients were followed for an average of 29 months . Results : All three evaluations of pulmonary rehabilitation showed changes on the QWB in excess of the proposed 0.03 MCID . QWB changes for patients assigned to lung volume reduction surgery were close to the MCID threshold at one year but grew stronger in subsequent years . Using Norman 's 0.50 st and ard deviation method , all three estimates of rehabilitation effectiveness and the outcomes one year following surgery fall below the MCID . Conclusion : Different methods for estimating MCID lead to different conclusions about the meaning of quality of life changes following pulmonary rehabilitation and lung volume reduction surgery . The preference scaling system in generic utility-based quality of life measures provides a metric that is directly interpretable and avoids many of the criticisms of MCID measures . The method is sensitive enough to suggest clinical ly meaningful benefits of rehabilitation and surgery . Further , quality adjusted life years offer a valuable metric for policy analysis . Utility-based measures of health related quality of life should gain greater use in COPD outcomes research
In this sub-set , it was found that method ological differences contributed to variation in utility values .
Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods .
Within direct methods , there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies ( st and ard gamble [ SG ] vs time trade-off ) ; but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods .
When comparing indirect methods , the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D , but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states .
When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model , consideration of the utility elicitation method is important , as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD
AIMS Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) , but values can vary depending on the method used .
The aim of this systematic literature review ( SLR ) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD .