Measuring and valuing outcomes

Mott, D.J., Shah, K.K., Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Devlin, N.J. and Rivero-Arias, O.

Research Paper
July 2019

This Research Paper describes a study examining adolescent and adult responses to a discrete choice experiment (DCE) containing EQ-5D-Y health states in order to determine whether the two groups exhibit different preferences.

OHE Lunchtime Seminar with Anirban Basu, 24th July 2019. The seminar will examine conceptual and theoretic arguments for use of HYT and illustrate their performance.

In collaboration with University of Technology Sydney, we’re leading a study funded by the EuroQol Research Foundation to develop ‘bolt-on’ descriptors for the EQ-5D. The goal is to develop and test new questions that can be used with people who have cognitive impairment or visual impairment.

Professor Nancy Devlin has recently been awarded an honorary position at OHE as a Senior Visiting Fellow.

The Student Mental Health Research Network (SMaRteN), in which OHE is a collaborator, is conducting research to find out which outcome measures are most useful in the context of student wellbeing.

Measuring and Valuing Outcomes

Health outcomes constitute the basis for any form of evaluation in the context of health. For any scenario involving health assessment, it is essential to determine: which health outcomes matter and capture the essence of the problem; how these outcomes can be measured using methods that are robust, valid, reliable and replicable; and how they can be summarised to reflect their value to relevant groups (e.g. patients, caregivers, clinicians, society).

Koonal Shah gave a webinar for the International Health Economics Association on the topic of adult versus adolescent preferences for EQ-5D-Y health states.

A new OHE Research Paper considers whether we can compare and aggregate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data between people and settings. The paper is authored by Nancy Devlin (University of Melbourne), Paula Lorgelly (King’s College London) and Mike Herdman (OHE).

Devlin, N., Lorgelly, P. and Herdman, M.

Research Paper
April 2019

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the issues that might limit comparability of PRO data and to highlight some of the evidence that exists on these issues. We note some of the implications for the development and use of PRO instruments, for their application in multi-country clinical trials, and for employing evidence from them in regulatory and reimbursement decisions. Although much progress has been made in this area, there is still scope for further research and improvement. Numerous factors can affect the comparability of PRO data across (and potentially within) countries and cultures. Failure to recognise and account for these differences could lead to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines and other health care interventions. We suggest areas where further research and enhanced guidelines for users of PRO instruments and data would be useful.

The measurement of quality of life in the context of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is challenging. This is because the disease is experienced by children and is rare, which makes data collection difficult. Our...

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Measuring and valuing outcomes