Uc3 a Five-Level Version of Eq-5d

Kind, Paul; Macran, Susan

doi:10.1016/s1098-3015(10)65676-8

Cited by 100 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no consistent pattern to suggest a clear effect of screening, surveillance, or surgery on utility. However, our results show that the average utility level of these elderly men, as with comparable populations, is around 0.8, similar to the UK population norm for men aged 65-74 22. This implies that the estimates of cost per life year gained should be increased by a factor of 25%, which would result in an estimated cost per QALY for the base case analysis of about £36 000.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from randomised controlled trial

Group¹

2002

BMJ

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Design Primary analysis: four year cost effectiveness analysis based directly on results from a randomised controlled trial in which patients were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (intervention) or to a control group not offered screening. Secondary analysis: projection of the data, based on conservative assumptions, to indicate likely cost effectiveness at 10 years. Setting Four centres in the United Kingdom. Screening delivered in primary care settings with follow up and surgery offered in the main hospitals Participants Population based sample of 67 800 men aged 65-74 years. Main outcome measures Mortality from and costs (screening, follow up, elective and emergency surgery) related to abdominal aortic aneurysm; cost per life year gained. Results Over four years there were 47 fewer deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysms in the screening group than in the control group, but the additional costs incurred were £2.2m. After adjustment for censoring and discounted at 6% the mean additional cost of the screening programme was £63.39 ($97.77, 100.48) (95% confidence interval £53.31 to £73.48) per patient. The hazard ratio for abdominal aortic aneurysm was 0.58 (0.42 to 0.78). Over four years the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio for screening was £28 400 (£15 000 to £146 000) per life year gained, equivalent to about £36 000 per quality adjusted life year. After 10 years this figure is estimated to fall to around £8000 per life year gained. Conclusions Even at four years the cost effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is at the margin of acceptability according to current NHS thresholds. Over a longer period the cost effectiveness will improve substantially, the predicted ratio at 10 years falling to around a quarter of the four year figure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from randomised controlled trial

Group¹

2002

BMJ

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EQ-5D was analysed using the so-called York A1 tariff, which is based on time trade-off preferences from the general public of the UK 6. Reference scores for the EQ-5D index were obtained from the York study 20. The EQ-5D is well able to describe a heterogeneous injury population and to discriminate among specific injuries 17.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The measurement of long-term health-related quality of life after injury: comparison of EQ-5D and the health utilities index

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different MAUI resulted in significantly different summary scores. The instruments and their dimensions performed differently for injury severity levels, ageing, comorbidity and injury groups. A combination of the HUI and EQ-5D should be used in studies on injury-related disability, because the combination covers all relevant health dimensions, is applicable in all kinds of injury populations and in widely different age ranges.

show abstract

“…This generic health status instrument measures health on five scales (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression) each with three points, thus putting participants into one of 243 (= 3x3x3x3x3) health states. We estimated how many QALYs participants had experienced during their year in the UK alcohol treatment trial by using UK population norms to value their health states17 and linear interpolation18 to calculate areas under the QALY curves. To impute missing final health states for a few respondents we carried forward their previous states.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT)

Godfrey¹,

Coulton²

2005

BMJ

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of social behaviour and network therapy, a new treatment for alcohol problems, with that of the proved motivational enhancement therapy. Design Cost effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic randomised trial. Setting Seven treatment sites around Birmingham, Cardiff, and Leeds. Participants 742 clients with alcohol problems; 617 (83.2%) were interviewed at 12 months and full economic data were obtained on 608 (98.5% of 617). Main economic measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs of trial treatments, and consequences for public sector resources (health care, other alcohol treatment, social services, and criminal justice services). Results Both therapies saved about five times as much in expenditure on health, social, and criminal justice services as they cost. Neither net savings nor cost effectiveness differed significantly between the therapies, despite the average cost of social behaviour and network therapy (£221; $385; €320) being significantly more than that of motivational enhancement therapy (£129). If a QALY were worth £30 000, then the motivational therapy would have 58% chance of being more cost effective than the social therapy, and the social therapy would have 42% chance of being more cost effective than the motivational therapy. Conclusion Participants reported highly significant reductions in drinking and associated problems and costs. The novel social behaviour and network therapy did not differ significantly in cost effectiveness from the proved motivational enhancement therapy.

show abstract

Uc3 a Five-Level Version of Eq-5d

Cited by 100 publications

References 0 publications

Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from randomised controlled trial

Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from randomised controlled trial

The measurement of long-term health-related quality of life after injury: comparison of EQ-5D and the health utilities index

Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About