Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-vqtzn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T16:32:22.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Pirjo Räsänen ,
Eija Roine ,
Harri Sintonen ,
Virpi Semberg-Konttinen ,
Olli-Pekka Ryynänen  and
Risto Roine
Pirjo Räsänen
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Eija Roine
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Harri Sintonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment
Virpi Semberg-Konttinen
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Olli-Pekka Ryynänen
Affiliation:
University of Kuopio
Risto Roine
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify, in a systematic literature review, published studies having used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on actual measurements of patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to determine which HRQoL instruments have been used to calculate QALYs. Furthermore, the aims were to characterize studies with regard to medical specialty, intervention studied, results obtained, quality, country of origin, QALY gain observed, and interpretation of results regarding cost-effectiveness.

Methods: Systematic searches of the literature were made using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCI, and Cochrane Library electronic databases. Initial screening of identified articles was based on abstracts read independently by two of the authors; full-text articles were again evaluated by two authors, who made the final decision on which articles should be included.

Results: The search identified 3,882 articles; 624 were obtained for closer review. Of the reviewed full-text articles, seventy reported QALYs based on actual before–after measurements using a valid HRQoL instrument. The most frequently used instrument was EuroQol HRQoL instrument (EQ-5D, 47.5 percent). Other instruments used were Health Utilities Index (HUI, 8.8 percent), the Rosser–Kind Index (6.3 percent), Quality of Well-Being (QWB, 6.3 percent), Short Form-6D (SF-6D, 5.0 percent), and 15D (2.5 percent). The rest (23.8 percent) used a direct valuation method: Time Trade-Off (10.0 percent), Standard Gamble (5.0 percent), visual analogue scale (5.0 percent), or rating scale (3.8 percent). The most frequently studied medical specialties were orthopedics (15.5 percent), pulmonary diseases (12.7 percent), and cardiology (9.9 percent). Ninety percent of the studies came from four countries: United Kingdom, United States, Canada, the Netherlands. Approximately half of the papers were methodologically high quality randomized trials. Forty-nine percent of the studied interventions were viewed by the authors of the original studies as being cost-effective; only 13 percent of interventions were deemed not to be cost-effective.

Conclusions: Although QALYs gained are considered an important measure of effectiveness of health care, the number of studies in which QALYs are based on actual measurements of patients' HRQoL is still fairly limited.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenessHealth-related quality of lifeQuality-adjusted life years

Information

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 235 - 241
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. 1997. Methods for the Economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elstein AS, Chapman GB, Chmiel JS, et al. 2004 Agreement between prostate cancer patients and their clinicians about utilities and attribute importance. Health Expect. 7: 115– 125.Google Scholar
Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, Son LH, Conant L. 1989 Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Med Care. 27 (Suppl): 91– 98.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. 1998 Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2: i– iv, 1– 74.Google Scholar
Gerard K. 1992 Cost-utility in practice: A policy maker's guide to the state of the art. Health Policy. 21: 249– 279.Google Scholar
Gerard K, Smoker I, Seymour J. 1999 Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: Lessons learnt and still to learn. Health Policy. 46: 217– 238.Google Scholar
Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg D, Winkelmayer WC, Neumann PJ. 2005 Prevailing judgments about society's willingness to pay for QALY or life-year gained. Ital J Public Health. 2 (Suppl 1): 301.Google Scholar
Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. 2004. Evidence for the benefits of telecardiology applications: A systematic review. Alberta Heritage Found Med Res.Google Scholar
Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. 2004 Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 10: 318– 324.Google Scholar
Harris WH. 1969 Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 51: 737– 755.Google Scholar
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. 1989 Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 248: 13– 14.Google Scholar
Kopec JA, Willison KD. 2003 A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 56: 317– 325.Google Scholar
Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB. 2005 Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health. 8: 3– 9.Google Scholar
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. 2004 National Institute for Clinical Exellence and its value judgements. BMJ. 329: 224– 227.Google Scholar
Sintonen H. The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. I. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 41, Melbourne 1994. Available at: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/publications.php#rp.
Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, Drinkwater J, Gregory WM. 1989 Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer. 57: 109– 112.Google Scholar