Using QALYs in telehealth evaluations: a systematic review of methodology and transparency

BackgroundThe quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a recognised outcome measure in health economic evaluations. QALY incorporates individual preferences and identifies health gains by combining mortality and morbidity into one single index number. A literature review was conducted to examine and discuss the use of QALYs to measure outcomes in telehealth evaluations.MethodsEvaluations were identified via a literature search in all relevant databases. Only economic evaluations measuring both costs and QALYs using primary patient level data of two or more alternatives were included.ResultsA total of 17 economic evaluations estimating QALYs were identified. All evaluations used validated generic health related-quality of life (HRQoL) instruments to describe health states. They used accepted methods for transforming the quality scores into utility values. The methodology used varied between the evaluations. The evaluations used four different preference measures (EQ-5D, SF-6D, QWB and HUI3), and utility scores were elicited from the general population. Most studies reported the methodology used in calculating QALYs. The evaluations were less transparent in reporting utility weights at different time points and variability around utilities and QALYs. Few made adjustments for differences in baseline utilities. The QALYs gained in the reviewed evaluations varied from 0.001 to 0.118 in implying a small but positive effect of telehealth intervention on patient’s health. The evaluations reported mixed cost-effectiveness results.ConclusionThe use of QALYs in telehealth evaluations has increased over the last few years. Different methodologies and utility measures have been used to calculate QALYs. A more harmonised methodology and utility measure is needed to ensure comparability across telehealth evaluations.

[1]  S. Bae,et al.  International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? , 2010, Health economics.

[2]  K. Muir,et al.  Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Open Access Comparing the Performance of the Eq-5d and Sf-6d When Measuring the Benefits of Alleviating Knee Pain Background , 2009 .

[3]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  K. Rabe,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Internet-Based Self-Management Compared with Usual Care in Asthma , 2011, PloS one.

[5]  T. Reardon,et al.  Research findings and strategies for assessing telemedicine costs. , 2005, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[6]  Adrian G. Barnett,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Delivered Intervention for Physical Activity and Diet , 2009, PloS one.

[7]  A. Scott,et al.  Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy , 2013, PharmacoEconomics.

[8]  M. Neyt,et al.  Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care KCE reports , 2009 .

[9]  A. Kasuya EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. , 1990, Health policy.

[10]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[11]  Nick Kontodimopoulos,et al.  Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[12]  J. Brazier,et al.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[13]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  Variation in the Estimation of Quality‐adjusted Life‐years by Different Preference‐based Instruments , 2003, Medical care.

[14]  George Tomlinson,et al.  Predicting EQ-5D Utility Scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in Coronary Artery Disease , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  B. O'brien,et al.  The death of cost-minimization analysis? , 2001, Health economics.

[16]  P. Hebert,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Disease Management for Heart Failure in an Ethnically Diverse Urban Community , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[18]  Mark Leys,et al.  Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  Paul F. M. Krabbe,et al.  Kwaliteit van leven meten in economische evaluaties: het Nederlands EQ-5D-tarief , 2005 .

[20]  F. Smit,et al.  Economic Evaluation of Internet-Based Interventions for Harmful Alcohol Use Alongside a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[21]  F. Pang,et al.  Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[22]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Measuring costs and consequences in economic evaluation in asthma. , 2003, Respiratory medicine.

[23]  G. Wills,et al.  A pilot randomised controlled trial of an Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy self-management programme (MS Invigor8) for multiple sclerosis fatigue. , 2012, Behaviour research and therapy.

[24]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[25]  A. Parker,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients , 2009, PloS one.

[26]  David Parkin,et al.  Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. , 2004, Health economics.

[27]  Martin Knapp,et al.  Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial , 2013, BMJ.

[28]  Marthe R. Gold,et al.  Mapping the SF-12 to Preference-Based Instruments: Convergent Validity in a Low-Income, Minority Population , 2003, Medical care.

[29]  J. Cairns,et al.  SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility , 2009, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[30]  E. Wouters,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial , 2007, Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E.

[31]  I. Hendriksen,et al.  Economic evaluation of a weight control program with e-mail and telephone counseling among overweight employees: a randomized controlled trial , 2012, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[32]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[33]  Matthew L Maciejewski,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression. , 2010, Archives of general psychiatry.

[34]  Alison Bowes,et al.  Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews , 2010, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[35]  E. Yeoh,et al.  Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmissions: a review of the literature. , 2010, Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi.

[36]  L. Yardley,et al.  Clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness in primary care: single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[37]  M. Drummond,et al.  Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice , 2002 .

[38]  S. Bryan,et al.  Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[39]  A. Tosteson,et al.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. , 2007, PharmacoEconomics.

[40]  M. Drummond Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[41]  R. Wootton Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management – an evidence synthesis , 2012, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[42]  Andrea Manca,et al.  Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. , 2004, Health economics.

[43]  Oliver Rivero-Arias,et al.  Estimating the Association between SF-12 Responses and EQ-5D Utility Values by Response Mapping , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[44]  I. Autti-Rämö,et al.  QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SCREENING PROGRAMS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW , 2012, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[45]  S. J. Whitehead,et al.  Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. , 2010, British medical bulletin.

[46]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. , 2005, Health economics.

[47]  Trine S Bergmo,et al.  Economic evaluation in telemedicine – still room for improvement , 2010, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[48]  S. Palmer,et al.  Definitions of efficiency , 1999, BMJ.

[49]  R. Goeree,et al.  A review of health utilities across conditions common in paediatric and adult populations , 2010, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[50]  U. Björnstig,et al.  A cost-utility analysis of nursing intervention via telephone follow-up for injured road users , 2009, BMC health services research.

[51]  H. Sintonen The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[52]  D J Torgerson,et al.  Economic notes: definitions of efficiency. , 1999, BMJ.

[53]  Y. Tountas,et al.  Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[54]  John E. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[55]  M. Drummond,et al.  Using QALYs in Cancer: A Review of the Methdological Limitations , 2010 .

[56]  R M Kaplan,et al.  A general health policy model: update and applications. , 1988, Health services research.

[57]  H. Mistry Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years , 2012, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[58]  R. Beyth,et al.  The cost-utility of a care coordination/home telehealth programme for veterans with diabetes , 2007, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[59]  P. Lambin,et al.  Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[60]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[61]  P. Bower,et al.  Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[62]  Johannes Brug,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of tailored print communication, telephone motivational interviewing, and a combination of the two: results of an economic evaluation alongside the Vitalum randomized controlled trial , 2010, The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity.

[63]  M. Drummond,et al.  Using QALYs in Cancer , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[64]  J. Brazier,et al.  The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health From the SF-12 , 2004, Medical care.

[65]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[66]  Trine S Bergmo,et al.  Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature , 2009, Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E.

[67]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[68]  A. While,et al.  Telephone follow‐up to improve glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled trials , 2010, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[69]  J. Seidell,et al.  Oral nutritional support in malnourished elderly decreases functional limitations with no extra costs. , 2012, Clinical nutrition.

[70]  T. Albert,et al.  Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. , 2012, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[71]  D. Schillinger,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Automated Telephone Self-Management Support With Nurse Care Management Among Patients With Diabetes , 2008, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[72]  J. Karnon,et al.  A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication , 2010, BMC health services research.

[73]  Brad Smith,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of telephonic disease management in heart failure. , 2008, The American journal of managed care.

[74]  K. Muir,et al.  Comparing Cost-Utility Estimates: Does the Choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D Matter? , 2009, Medical care.

[75]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff]. , 2005, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[76]  M Sculpher,et al.  A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[77]  R. Kaplan The Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Generic Utility-Based Measures , 2005, COPD.

[78]  M. Soares Is the QALY blind, deaf and dumb to equity? NICE's considerations over equity. , 2012, British medical bulletin.

[79]  J. Thumboo,et al.  Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[80]  R. Osborne,et al.  The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life , 1999, Quality of Life Research.