A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms

Abstract

Purpose So far there is no Norwegian value algorithm to inform healthcare decision making. The 15D health state values estimated with the original 15D valuation procedure tend to be higher than the values of other generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The main purpose of this study was to use a new 15D valuation procedure to estimate Norwegian 15D health state values and to explore their empirical performance. Methods The visual analogue scale was used to collect 15D valuation data in a representative sample of the Norwegian general population. The new procedure used fewer valuation tasks and anchored the 15D health state values in an empirically assessed range. The Norwegian 15D health state values were compared to the values of five HRQoL instruments which were provided by Norwegian residents belonging to seven disease groups and a healthy population. Results The Norwegian 15D health state values ranged from 1 to − 0.52. Compared to 15D health state values estimated with the original procedure, the Norwegian 15D health state values were lower and more in line with values of other HRQoL instruments. Conclusions The new 15D valuation procedure is simpler, links the 15D health state values better to the requirements of the QALY model, and provides an empirically-based range. We recommend using the new valuation procedure in future 15D valuation studies, and the Norwegian health state values for use in 15D-based health economic analyses in Norway.

An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values

“…Each dimension has five severity levels, resulting in 5 x 10 15 health states. The value set was generated using VAS values elicited in Finland [9] with a recent value set generated using VAS for Norway [53].…”

A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and 15D descriptive systems and index values in a general population sample

“…Furthermore, using Danish value sets for Hungary may also pose additional problems given the differences in sociodemographic and economic characteristics and cultural values between the two countries [ 41 ]. Therefore, to test the robustness of our results, we repeated all analyses using the Hungarian EQ-5D-5L [ 42 ] and Norwegian 15D value sets [ 14 ]. The former was selected because of the study country, while the latter was considered as the most recently developed 15D value set with a similar value set range to the Hungarian EQ-5D-5L value set.…”

“…The index values of the final value set range from 0.160 to 1. The Norwegian value set, used for the sensitivity analysis, also relies on an additive model [ 14 ]. However, it only kept the ‘within dimension tasks’ from the original valuation that was supplemented by a pits-task, whereby respondents were asked to rate the worst possible health state on a VAS together with ‘being dead’.…”

“…The instrument has been validated in numerous patient populations and translated to multiple languages; however, its popularity is predominantly concentrated in the Nordic countries [ 10 ]. Country-specific 15D value sets have been developed in Finland [ 11 ], Denmark [ 12 ], and Norway [ 13 , 14 ]. Two countries (Norway and Chile) mention the 15D as an acceptable instrument in their health technology assessment guidelines [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Validation and comparison of five preference-based measures among age-related macular degeneration patients: evidence from mainland China

“…The Chinese version of the 15D was used in this study and was scored using the original Finnish tariff (with a theoretical utility ranged from 0.11 to 1) [28]. The Norwegian tariff [29] has also been developed for 15D but the Chinese tariff is not yet available. The 15D has previously been used in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes [30].…”