Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 13th January 2020

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery. The European Journal of Health Economics [PubMed] Published 4th January 2020

The EQ-5D is insensitive to differences in how well people can see, despite this seeming to be an important aspect of health. In contexts where the impact of visual impairment may be important, we could potentially use a ‘bolt-on’ item that asks about a person’s vision. I’m working on the development of a vision bolt-on at the moment. But ours won’t be the first. A previously-developed bolt-on has undergone some testing and has been shown to be sensitive to differences between people with different levels of visual function. However, there is little or no evidence to support its responsiveness to changes in visual function, which might arise from treatment.

For this study, 63 individuals were recruited prior to receiving cataract surgery in Singapore. Participants completed the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L, both with and without a vision bolt-on, which matched the wording of other EQ-5D dimensions. Additionally, the SF-6D, HUI3, and VF-12 were completed along with a LogMAR assessment of visual acuity. The authors sought to compare the responsiveness of the EQ-5D with a vision bolt-on compared with the standard EQ-5D and the other measures. Therefore, all measures were completed before and after cataract surgery. Preference weights can be generated for the EQ-5D-3L with a vision bolt-on, but they can’t for the EQ-5D-5L, so the authors looked at rescaled sum scores to compare across all measures. Responsiveness was measured using indicators such as standardised effect size and response mean.

Visual acuity changed dramatically before and after surgery, for almost everybody. The authors found that the vision bolt-on does seem to provide a great deal more in the way of response to this, compared to the EQ-5D without the bolt-on. For instance, the mean change in the EQ-5D-3L index score was 0.018 without the vision bolt-on, and 0.031 with it. The HUI3 came out with a mean change of 0.105 and showed the highest responsiveness across all analyses.

Does this mean that we should all be using a vision bolt-on, or perhaps the HUI3? Not exactly. Something I see a lot in papers of this sort – including in this one – is the framing of a “superior responsiveness” as an indication that the measure is doing a better job. That isn’t true if the measure is responding to things to which we don’t want it to respond. As the authors point out, the HUI3 has quite different foundations to the EQ-5D. We also don’t want a situation where analysts can pick and choose measures according to which ever is most responsive to the thing to which they want it to be most responsive. In EuroQol parlance, what goes into the descriptive system is very important.

The causal effect of social activities on cognition: evidence from 20 European countries. Social Science & Medicine Published 9th January 2020

Plenty of studies have shown that cognitive abilities are correlated with social engagement, but few have attempted to demonstrate causality in a large sample. The challenge, of course, is that people who engage in more social activities are likely to have greater cognitive abilities for other reasons, and people’s decision to engage in social activities might depend on their cognitive abilities. This study tackles the question of causality using a novel (to me, at least) methodology.

The analysis uses data from five waves of SHARE (the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe). Survey respondents are asked about whether they engage in a variety of social activities, such as voluntary work, training, sports, or community-related organisations. From this, the authors generate an indicator for people participating in zero, one, or two or more of these activities. The survey also uses a set of tests to measure people’s cognitive abilities in terms of immediate recall capacity, delayed recall capacity, fluency, and numeracy. The authors look at each of these four outcomes, with 231,407 observations for the first three and 124,381 for numeracy (for which the questions were missing from some waves). Confirming previous findings, a strong positive correlation is found between engagement in social activities and each of the cognition indicators.

The empirical strategy, which I had never heard of, is partial identification. This is a non-parametric method that identifies bounds for the average treatment effect. Thus, it is ‘partial’ because it doesn’t identify a point estimate. Fewer assumptions means wider and less informative bounds. The authors start with a model with no assumptions, for which the lower bound for the treatment effect goes below zero. They then incrementally add assumptions. These include i) a monotone treatment response, assuming that social participation does not reduce cognitive abilities on average; ii) monotone treatment selection, assuming that people who choose to be socially active tend to have higher cognitive capacities; iii) a monotone instrumental variable assumption that body mass index is negatively associated with cognitive abilities. The authors argue that their methodology is not likely to be undermined by unobservables, as previous studies might.

The various models show that engaging in social activities has a positive impact on all four of the cognitive indicators. The assumption of monotone treatment response had the highest identifying power. For all models that included this, the 95% confidence intervals in the estimates showed a statistically significant positive impact of social activities on cognition. What is perhaps most interesting about this approach is the huge amount of uncertainty in the estimates. Social activities might have a huge effect on cognition or they might have a tiny effect. A basic OLS-type model, assuming exogenous selection, provides very narrow confidence intervals, whereas the confidence intervals on the partial identification models are almost as wide as the lower and upper band themselves.

One shortcoming of this study for me is that it doesn’t seek to identify the causal channels that have been proposed in previous literature (e.g. loneliness, physical activity, self-care). So it’s difficult to paint a clear picture of what’s going on. But then, maybe that’s the point.

Do research groups align on an intervention’s value? Concordance of cost-effectiveness findings between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and other health system stakeholders. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy [PubMed] Published 10th January 2020

Aside from having the most inconvenient name imaginable, ICER has been a welcome edition to the US health policy scene, appraising health technologies in order to provide guidance on coverage. ICER has become influential, with some pharmacy benefit managers using their assessments as a basis for denying coverage for low value medicines. ICER identify technologies as falling in one of three categories – high, low, or intermediate long-term value – according to whether the ICER (grr) falls below, above, or between the threshold range of $50,000-$175,000 per QALY. ICER conduct their own evaluations, but so do plenty of other people. This study sought to find out whether other analyses in the literature agree with ICER’s categorisations.

The authors consider 18 assessments by ICER, including 76 interventions, between 2015 and 2017. For each of these, the authors searched the literature for other comparative studies. Specifically, they went looking for cost-effectiveness analyses that employed the same perspectives and outcomes. Unfortunately, they were only able to identify studies for six disease areas and 14 interventions (of the 76), across 25 studies. It isn’t clear whether this is because there is a lack of literature out there – which would be an interesting finding in itself – or because their search strategy or selection criteria weren’t up to scratch. Of the 14 interventions compared, 10 get a more favourable assessment in the published studies than in their corresponding ICER evaluations, with most being categorised as intermediate value instead of low value. The authors go on to conduct one case study, comparing an ICER evaluation in the context of migraine with a published study by some of the authors of this paper. There were methodological differences. In some respects, it seems as if ICER did a more thorough job, while in other respects the published study seemed to use more defensible assumptions.

I agree with the authors that these kinds of comparisons are important. Not least, we need to be sure that ICER’s approach to appraisal is valid. The findings of this study suggest that maybe ICER should be looking at multiple studies and combining all available data in a more meaningful way. But the authors excluded too many studies. Some imperfect comparisons would have been more useful than exclusion – 14 of 76 is kind of pitiful and probably not representative. And I’m not sure why the authors set out to identify studies that are ‘more favourable’, rather than just different. That perspective seems to reveal an assumption that ICER are unduly harsh in their assessments.

Credits

David Mott’s journal round-up for 16th September 2019

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Opening the ‘black box’: an overview of methods to investigate the decision‑making process in choice‑based surveys. The Patient [PubMed] Published 5th September 2019

Choice-based surveys using methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) exercises are increasingly being used in health to understand people’s preferences. A lot of time and energy is spent on analysing the data that come out from these surveys but increasingly there is an interest in better understanding respondents’ decision-making processes. Whilst many will be aware of ‘think aloud’ interviews (often used for piloting), other methods may be less familiar as they’re not applied frequently in health. That’s where this fascinating paper by Dan Rigby and colleagues comes in. It provides an overview of five different methods of what they call ‘pre-choice process analysis’ of decision-making, describing the application, state of knowledge, and future research opportunities.

Eye-tracking has been used in health recently. It’s intuitive and provides an insight into where the participants’ focus is (or isn’t). The authors explained that one of the ways it has been used is to explore attribute non-attendance (ANA), which essentially occurs when people are ignoring attributes either because they’re irrelevant to them, or simply because it makes the task easier. However, surprisingly, it has been suggested that ‘visual ANA’ (not looking at the attribute) doesn’t always align with ‘stated ANA’ (participants stating that they ignored the attribute) – which raises some interesting questions!

However, the real highlight for me was the overview of the use of brain imaging techniques to explore choices being made in DCEs. One study highlighted by the authors – which was a DCE about eggs and is now at least #2 on my list of the bizarre preference study topics after this oddly specific one on Iberian ham – predicted choices from an initial ‘passive viewing’ using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). They found that incorporating changes in blood flow (prompted by changes in attribute levels during ‘passive viewing’) into a random utility model accounted for a lot of the variation in willingness to pay for eggs – pretty amazing stuff.

Whilst I’ve highlighted the more unusual methods here, after reading this overview I have to admit that I’m an even bigger advocate for the ‘think aloud’ technique now. Although it may have some limitations, the amount of insight offered combined with its practicality is hard to beat. Though maybe I’m biased because I know that I won’t get my hands on any eye-tracking or brain imaging devices any time soon. In any case, I highly recommend that any researchers conducting preference studies give this paper a read as it’s really well written and will surely be of interest.

Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 21st June 2019

The end of life (EOL) policy introduced by NICE in 2009 [PDF] has proven controversial. The policy allows treatments that are not cost-effective within the usual range to be considered for approval, provided that certain criteria are met. Specifically, that the treatment targets patients with a short life expectancy (≤24 months), offers a life extension (of ≥3 months) and is for a ‘small patient population’. One of the biggest issues with this policy is that it is unclear whether the general population actually supports the idea of valuing health gains (specifically life extension) at EOL more than other health gains.

Numerous academic studies, usually involving some form of stated preference exercise, have been conducted to test whether the public might support this EOL premium. A recent review by Koonal Shah and colleagues summarised the existing published studies (up to October 2017), highlighting that evidence is extremely mixed. This recently published Danish study, by Lise Desireé Hansen and Trine Kjær, adds to this literature. The authors conducted an incredibly thorough stated preference exercise to test whether quality of life (QOL) gains and life extension (LE) at EOL are valued differently from other similarly sized health gains. Not only that, but the study also explored the effect of perspective on results (social vs individual), the effect of age (18-35 vs. 65+), and impact of initial severity (25% vs. 40% initial QOL) on results.

Overall, they did not find evidence of support for an EOL premium for QOL gains or for LEs (regardless of perspective) but their results do suggest that QOL gains are preferred over LE. In some scenarios, there was slightly more support for EOL in the social perspective variant, relative to the individual perspective – which seems quite intuitive. Both age and initial severity had an impact on results, with respondents preferring to treat the young and those with worse QOL at baseline. One of the most interesting results for me was within their subgroup analyses, which suggested that women and those with a relation to a terminally ill patient had a significantly positive preference for EOL – but only in the social perspective scenarios.

This is a really well-designed study, which covers a lot of different concepts. This probably doesn’t end the debate on NICE’s use of the EOL criteria – not least because the study wasn’t conducted in England and Wales – but it contributes a lot. I’d consider it a must-read for anyone interested in this area.

How should we capture health state utility in dementia? Comparisons of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of self- and proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health Published 26th August 2019

Capturing quality of life (QOL) in dementia and obtaining health state utilities is incredibly challenging; which is something that I’ve started to really appreciate recently upon getting involved in a EuroQol-funded ‘bolt-ons’ project. The EQ-5D is not always able to detect meaningful changes in cognitive function and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs), such as the DEMQOL, may be preferred as a result. However, this isn’t the only challenge because in many cases patients are not in a position to complete the surveys themselves. This means that proxy-reporting is often required, which could be done by either a professional (formal) carer, or a friend or family member (informal carer). Researchers that want to use a PBM in this population therefore have a lot to consider.

This paper compares the performance of the EQ-5D-5L and the DEMQOL-Proxy when completed by care home residents (EQ-5D-5L only), formal carers and informal carers. The impressive dataset that the authors use contains 1,004 care home residents, across up to three waves, and includes a battery of different cognitive and QOL measures. The overall objective was to compare the performance of the EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-Proxy, across the three respondent groups, based on 1) construct validity, 2) criterion validity, and 3) responsiveness.

The authors found that self-reported EQ-5D-5L scores were larger and less responsive to changes in the cognitive measures, but better at capturing residents’ self-reported QOL (based on a non-PBM) relative to proxy-reported scores. It is unclear whether this is a case of adaptation as seen in many other patient groups, or if the residents’ cognitive impairments prevent them from reliably assessing their current status. The proxy-reported EQ-5D-5L scores were generally more responsive to changes in the cognitive measures relative to the DEMQOL-Proxy (irrespective of which type of proxy), which the authors note is probably due to the fact that the DEMQOL-Proxy focuses more on the emotional impact of dementia rather than functional impairment.

Overall, this is a really interesting paper, which highlights the challenges well and illustrates that there is value in collecting these data from both patients and proxies. In terms of the PBM comparison, whilst the authors do not explicitly state it, it does seem that the EQ-5D-5L may have a slight upper hand due to its responsiveness, as well as for pragmatic reasons (the DEMQOL-Proxy has >30 questions). Perhaps a cognition ‘bolt-on’ to the EQ-5D-5L might help to improve the situation in future?

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st April 2019

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Toward a centralized, systematic approach to the identification, appraisal, and use of health state utility values for reimbursement decision making: introducing the Health Utility Book (HUB). Medical Decision Making [PubMed] Published 22nd March 2019

Every data point reported in research should be readily available to us all in a structured knowledge base. Most of us waste most of our time retreading old ground, meaning that we don’t have the time to do the best research possible. One instance of this is in the identification of health state utility values to plug into decision models. Everyone who builds a model in a particular context goes searching for utility values – there is no central source. The authors of this paper are hoping to put an end to that.

The paper starts with an introduction to the importance of health state utility values in cost-effectiveness analysis, which most of us don’t need to read. Of course, the choice of utility values in a model is very important and can dramatically alter estimates of cost-effectiveness. The authors also discuss issues around the identification of utility values and the assessment of their quality and applicability. Then we get into the objectives of the ‘Health Utility Book’, which is designed to tackle these issues.

The Health Utility Book will consist of a registry (I like registries), backed by a systematic approach to the identification and inclusion (registration?) of utility values. The authors plan to develop a quality assessment tool for studies that report utility values, using a Delphi panel method to identify appropriate indicators of quality to be included. The quality assessment tool will be complemented by a tool to assess applicability, which will be developed through interviews with stakeholders involved in the reimbursement process.

In the first place, the Health Utility Book will only compile utility values for cancer, and some of the funding for the project is cancer specific. To survive, the project will need more money from more sources. To be sustainable, the project will need to attract funding indefinitely. Or perhaps it could morph into a crowd-sourced platform. Either way, the Health Utility Book has my support.

A review of attitudes towards the reuse of health data among people in the European Union: the primacy of purpose and the common good. Health Policy Published 21st March 2019

We all agree that data protection is important. We all love the GDPR. Organisations such as the European Council and the OECD are committed to facilitating the availability of health data as a means of improving population health. And yet, there often seem to be barriers to accessing health data, and we occasionally hear stories of patients opposing data sharing (e.g. care.data). Maybe people don’t want researchers to be using their data, and we just need to respect that. Or, more likely, we need to figure out what it is that people are opposed to, and design systems that recognise this.

This study reviews research on attitudes towards the sharing of health data for purposes other than treatment, among people living in the EU, employing a ‘configurative literature synthesis’ (a new one for me). From 5,691 abstracts, 29 studies were included. Most related to the use of health data in research in general, while some focused on registries. A few studies looked at other uses, such as for planning and policy purposes. And most were from the UK.

An overarching theme was a low awareness among the population about the reuse of health data. However, in some studies, a desire to be better informed was observed. In general, views towards the use of health data were positive. But this was conditional on the data being used to serve the common good. This includes such purposes as achieving a better understanding of diseases, improving treatments, or achieving more efficient health care. Participants weren’t so happy with health data reuse if it was seen to conflict with the interests of patients providing the data. Commercialisation is a big concern, including the sale of data and private companies profiting from the data. Employers and insurance companies were also considered a threat to patients’ interests. There were conflicting views about whether it is positive for pharmaceutical companies to have access to health data. A minority of people were against sharing data altogether. Certain types of data are seen as being particularly sensitive, including those relating to mental health or sexual health. In general, people expressed concern about data security and the potential for leaks. The studies also looked at the basis for consent that people would prefer. A majority accepted that their data could be used without consent so long as the data were anonymised. But there were no clear tendencies of preference for the various consent models.

It’s important to remember that – on the whole – patients want their data to be used to further the common good. But support can go awry if the data are used to generate profits for private firms or used in a way that might be perceived to negatively affect patients.

Health-related quality of life in injury patients: the added value of extending the EQ-5D-3L with a cognitive dimension. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 18th March 2019

I’m currently working on a project to develop a cognition ‘bolt-on’ for the EQ-5D. Previous research has demonstrated that a cognition bolt-on could provide additional information to distinguish meaningful differences between health states, and that cognition might be a more important candidate than other bolt-ons. Injury – especially traumatic brain injury – can be associated with cognitive impairments. This study explores the value of a cognition bolt-on in this context.

The authors sought to find out whether cognition is sufficiently independent of other dimensions, whether the impact of cognitive problems is reflected in the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ VAS), and how a cognition bolt-on affects the overall explanatory power of the EQ-5D-3L. The data used are from the Dutch Injury Surveillance System, which surveys people who have attended an emergency department with an injury, including EQ-5D-3L. The survey adds a cognitive bolt-on relating to memory and concentration.

Data were available for 16,624 people at baseline, with 5,346 complete responses at 2.5-month follow-up. The cognition item was the least affected, with around 20% reporting any problems (though it’s worth noting that the majority of the cohort had injuries to parts of the body other than the head). The frequency of different responses suggests that cognition is dominant over other dimensions in the sense that severe cognitive problems tend to be observed alongside problems in other dimensions, but not vice versa. The mean EQ VAS for people reporting severe cognitive impairment was 41, compared with a mean of 75 for those reporting no problems. Regression analysis showed that moderate and severe cognitive impairment explained 8.7% and 6.2% of the variance of the EQ VAS. Multivariate analysis suggested that the cognitive dimension added roughly the same explanatory power as any other dimension. This was across the whole sample. Interestingly (or, perhaps, worryingly) when the authors looked at the subset of people with traumatic brain injury, the explanatory power of the cognitive dimension was slightly lower than overall.

There’s enough in this paper to justify further research into the advantages and disadvantages of using a cognition bolt-on. But I would say that. Whether or not the bolt-on descriptors used in this study are meaningful to patients remains an open question.

Developing the role of electronic health records in economic evaluation. The European Journal of Health Economics [PubMed] Published 14th March 2019

One way that we can use patients’ routinely collected data is to support the conduct of economic evaluations. In this commentary, the authors set out some of the ways to make the most of these data and discuss some of the methodological challenges. Large datasets have the advantage of being large. When this is combined with the collection of sociodemographic data, estimates for sub-groups can be produced. The data can also facilitate the capture of outcomes not otherwise available. For example, the impact of bariatric surgery on depression outcomes could be identified beyond the timeframe of a trial. The datasets also have the advantage of being representative, where trials are not. This could mean more accurate estimates of costs and outcomes. But there are things to bear in mind when using the data, such as the fact that coding might not always be very accurate, and coding practices could vary between observations. Missing data are likely to be missing for a reason (i.e. not at random), which creates challenges for the analyst. I had hoped that this paper would discuss novel uses of routinely collected data systems, such as the embedding of economic evaluations within them, rather than simply their use to estimate parameters for a model. But if you’re just getting started with using routine data, I suppose you could do worse than start with this paper.

Credits