Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25283996›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2015

Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers.

Anja Schwalm, You-Shan Feng, Jörn Moock, Thomas Kohlmann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anja SchwalmInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Methods in Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. anja.schwalm@uni-greifswald.de.
You-Shan FengInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Methods in Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Jörn MoockCompetence Tandem PsychNetwork, Innovation Incubator, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Thomas KohlmannInstitute for Community Medicine, Section Methods in Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResults from existing studies indicate that different respondent groups' health state valuations in cost-utility analyses are not equivalent.

objectivesThe objectives in our study were to analyse differences in health state valuations among three respondent groups in the context of medical rehabilitation in Germany.

methodsUsing the time trade-off (TTO) technique, valuations of EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained from patients with musculoskeletal diseases, healthy volunteers and health care professionals. We used linear mixed models to predict TTO utilities and specified and tested interaction effects.

resultsWe identified statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences among the three groups in six out of 42 health states. On average, patients' TTO values were somewhat higher compared with other respondent groups. Most of these differences occurred in severe health states. Mean differences and mean absolute differences were 0.02 and 0.14 for patients vs healthy volunteers and 0.06 and 0.14 for patients vs health care professionals. Furthermore, significant effects among respondents were observed for seven of the 22 possible interactions describing differences between respondent groups. Coefficients associated with significant interaction effects ranged from 0.08 to 0.18 (absolute values).

conclusionThe results of our study suggest that TTO valuations of health states differ depending on the specific respondent group from which valuations are obtained. On average, these differences were small. However, researchers and decision makers should remain aware of these differences when interpreting incremental cost-utility assessments.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsYoung AdultCost effectivenessHealth statusPatient preferenceQuality-adjusted life yearsQuality of life

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.