How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Ilana N. Ackerman (), Richard Norman, Ian A. Harris, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Stephen Gill, Peter Lewis and Sze-Ee Soh
Additional contact information
Ilana N. Ackerman: Monash University
Richard Norman: Curtin University
Ian A. Harris: UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney
Kara Cashman: South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
Michelle Lorimer: South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
Stephen Gill: St John of God Hospital
Peter Lewis: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry
Sze-Ee Soh: Monash University

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2024, vol. 22, issue 5, No 9, 717-724

Abstract: Abstract Background With advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores. Objectives The aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement. Methods Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets (‘previous’ and ‘new’ value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots. Results EQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of −0.30 (compared with −0.68 previously) and fewer patients had ‘worse-than-dead’ quality of life (score

Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00894-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().