Next Article in Journal
Walkability and Greenness Do Not Walk Together: Investigating Associations between Greenness and Walkability in a Large Metropolitan City Context
Next Article in Special Issue
Association between Anxiety, Depressive Symptoms, and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Flexible Video Bronchoscopy
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Hindering Social Participation among Older Residents from Evacuation Zones after the Nuclear Power Plant Accident in Fukushima: The Fukushima Health Management Survey
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rasch Validation of the VF-14 Scale of Vision-Specific Functioning in Greek Patients
Systematic Review

Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review

1
Department of Economics, Business School, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada
2
Centre de Recherche de l’IUSMM, CIUSSS de l’Est de L’île de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada
3
Department of Management, Evaluation and Health Policy, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(9), 4428; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428
Received: 16 March 2021 / Revised: 16 April 2021 / Accepted: 18 April 2021 / Published: 21 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Related Quality of Life in Health Care)
Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions’ and levels’ selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores. View Full-Text
Keywords: QALY; utility; impact; instrument development; economic assessment QALY; utility; impact; instrument development; economic assessment
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Touré, M.; Kouakou, C.R.C.; Poder, T.G. Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428

AMA Style

Touré M, Kouakou CRC, Poder TG. Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Touré, Moustapha, Christian R.C. Kouakou, and Thomas G. Poder 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 9: 4428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop