FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2113185617> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2113185617 endingPage "592" @default.
• W2113185617 startingPage "591" @default.
• W2113185617 abstract "To the Editor – In this letter, we would like to address Kularatna et al.'s concerns about our recent study “Estimation and Comparison of EQ-5D Health States' Utility Weights for Pneumococcal and Human Papillomavirus Diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom” published in Value in Health. First, the authors of the letter express concerns about the use of vignettes. The approach we used is neither novel nor unusual (some recent examples can be seen in Janssen et al. [[1]Janssen M.F. Birnie E. Bonsel G.J. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods.Qual Life Res. 2008; 17: 463-473Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar] or Xie et al. [[2]Xie F. Oremus M. Gaebel K. Measuring health-related quality-of-life for Alzheimer's disease using the general public.Qual Life Res. 2011 Jul 9; ([Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar]). Each vignette was designed to present a disease as close to clinical reality as possible. Typical clinical cases were depicted, and they were not oriented to map the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire (in fact, the variability we found in the scores for each condition as well as in the descriptive states shows this). Vignettes were indeed developed, as Kularatna et al. suggest, by clinicians who have access on an everyday basis to patients suffering from the studied conditions. Furthermore, the vignettes were first piloted with members of the general population. Because of space constraints, some of these details were not described in the article. We were confident though that interested readers would contact us to get more information about this process. Then the authors of the letter make reference to the translation and linguistic validation of the vignettes, taking for granted that the vignettes were used in the United Kingdom, Chile, and Argentina. Unfortunately, this is a misunderstanding because, as is stated in the study article, the vignettes were administered only in Argentina: “…12 health state vignettes (…) were designed, pilot-tested, and administered to a convenience sample of subjects in Argentina.” We did it in only one country because the objective was to compare EQ-5D questionnaire health states' preference values “using the same health states' descriptive mix in the three countries” as is also described in the beginning of the article. Furthermore, this is emphasized in the discussion because it is a central aspect of our study, which shows that “utility coefficients for each condition differed significantly between the three analyzed countries even considering that the same health states' mix was valued in all three countries.” If this issue is not taken into consideration, the interpretation of the whole study will be flawed. Needless to say, translation and linguistic validation were not explained simply because they were not needed. Regarding Kularatna et al.'s suggestions about alternative methods, preference elicitation methods were never the main objective of this study. Social preference values were already available, and so we were not interested in measuring them. On the other hand, obtaining a sample of patients for all health states in the three participant countries would have been ideal. If we collected data from patients in the three countries though, we would have missed the opportunity to compare EQ-5D questionnaire utility weights exclusively because in that case both the five-digit EQ-5D questionnaire numbers and the utility weights would have varied from country to country. Even if we did it in only one country, this approach would have required primary data collection from patients in each of the 12 disease states, and recruiting sufficient number of subjects for each state of each of the diseases was clearly out of our possibilities and plans. Finally, the authors of the comment strongly advise not to repeat our approach but to use “sensible and scientifically valid methods” instead. Many still assume that utility values used in economic evaluations are transferable from place to place and use weights from other settings for quality-adjusted life-year calculations, but it has been consistently shown that there are systematic differences in social values among different countries-regions [3Augustovski F. Galante J. Argentine valuation of the EQ-5D health states.Value Health. 2009; 12: 587-596Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar, 4Johnson J.A. Luo N. Shaw J.W. Kind P. et al.Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?.Med Care. 2005; 43: 221-228Crossref PubMed Scopus (193) Google Scholar, 5Sakthong P. Charoenvisuthiwongs R. Shabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008; 6: 71Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 6Jelsma J. Hansen K. De Weerdt W. De Cock P. et al.How do Zimbabweans value health states?.Popul Health Metr. 2003; 1: 11Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar, 7Kharroubi S.A. O'Hagan A. Brazier J.E. A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method.Stat Med. 2010; 29: 1622-1634PubMed Google Scholar, 8Tsuchiya A. Ikeda S. Ikegami N. Nishimura S. et al.Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan.Health Econ. 2002; 11: 341-353Crossref PubMed Scopus (413) Google Scholar, 9Zarate V. Kind P. Chuang L.H. Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: a social value set for Latin Americans.Value Health. 2008; 11: 1170-1177Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar]. Therefore, we cannot emphasize enough the relevance of advancing in the field, even with low-resource–intensive approaches as the one we took. Because of the scarce research in this area in Latin America and the high contribution of the reported conditions to the regional burden of disease, we still think that our study has made a relevant regional contribution. This was a small study, as is acknowledged from the very beginning, “[a]lthough this study was a substudy of a larger project…” The fact that a study is small, however, is not related to its quality or the validity of its results. Health states could indeed be described in a different way, but this was not relevant in this practical exercise because what was tested was whether the country valuations were significantly different using the same set of health states. The fact that they are significantly different addresses the importance of using local and not foreign weights in context-specific analyses, and to show this with a realistic scenario was the rationale of the study. We understand Kularatna et al.'s concerns given the incomplete flawed interpretation of the study. To indicate, however, that a study lacks scientific validity is a rather serious matter and should be soundly justified after a deep understanding of the objectives and methods used in the study being criticized. Contact details are included in every published article. Critics should evacuate all their doubts through this channel before making such strong and general remarks. Criticism in science is absolutely vital, but it should be as sensible and scientifically valid as the work that is being criticized. Comment on the Use of Vignettes and the EQ-5D to Value Disease-Specific Health StatesValue in HealthVol. 15Issue 3PreviewTo the Editor – We are concerned about the techniques used in an attempt to elicit utility weights reported in the recent article by Galante et al. titled “Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states' utility weights for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus dsease in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom” in the July/August (5, Suppl. 1) 2011 issue of Value in Health titled “3rd Special Issue: Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Asia” [1]. That study aimed to estimate and compare the utility weights for health states associated with pneumococcal and human papilloma virus for Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Full-Text PDF Open Archive" @default.
• W2113185617 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2113185617 creator A5010988882 @default.
• W2113185617 creator A5053077563 @default.
• W2113185617 date "2012-05-01" @default.
• W2113185617 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2113185617 title "A Reply to Comment on the Use of Vignettes and the EQ-5D to Value Disease-Specific Health States" @default.
• W2113185617 cites W1984832613 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W1995397399 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2128685236 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2135174968 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2142427202 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2153141951 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2155116988 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2158769263 @default.
• W2113185617 cites W2162937108 @default.
• W2113185617 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.01.001" @default.
• W2113185617 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2113185617 type Work @default.
• W2113185617 sameAs 2113185617 @default.
• W2113185617 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2113185617 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2113185617 hasAuthorship W2113185617A5010988882 @default.
• W2113185617 hasAuthorship W2113185617A5053077563 @default.
• W2113185617 hasBestOaLocation W21131856171 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C2778464720 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C3019006561 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C105795698 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C126322002 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C15744967 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C2776291640 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C2778464720 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C2779134260 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C3019006561 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C33923547 @default.
• W2113185617 hasConceptScore W2113185617C71924100 @default.
• W2113185617 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2113185617 hasLocation W21131856171 @default.
• W2113185617 hasOpenAccess W2113185617 @default.
• W2113185617 hasPrimaryLocation W21131856171 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2051727078 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2082482010 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2322415543 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2322649837 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2326604595 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2328490086 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2361002540 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2522534512 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2113185617 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2113185617 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2113185617 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2113185617 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2113185617 magId "2113185617" @default.
• W2113185617 workType "article" @default.