Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;27(3):717-724.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1768-1. Epub 2017 Dec 16.

A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values

E M Camacho  1 , G Shields  2 , K Lovell  3 , P A Coventry  4   5 , A P Morrison  6 , L M Davies  2
Affiliations

A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values

E M Camacho et al. Qual Life Res. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: Economic evaluations of mental health interventions often measure health benefit in terms of utility values derived from the EQ-5D. For the five-level version of the EQ-5D, there are two methods of estimating utility [crosswalk and stated preference (5L-SP)]. This paper explores potential impacts for researchers and decision-makers when comparing utility values derived from either method in the specific context of mental health.

Methods: Baseline EQ-5D-5L data from three large randomised controlled trials of interventions for mental health conditions were analysed. Utility values were generated using each method. Mean utility values were compared using a series of t tests on pooled data and subgroups. Scenario analyses explored potential impacts on cost-effectiveness decisions.

Results: EQ-5D data were available for 1399 participants. The mean utility value for each trial was approximately 0.08 higher when estimated using the 5L-SP approach compared to crosswalk (p < 0.0001). The difference was greatest among people reporting extreme anxiety/depression (mean utility 5L-SP 0.309, crosswalk 0.084; difference = 0.225; p < 0.0001). Identical improvements in health status were associated with higher costs to gain one QALY with the 5L-SP approach; this is more pronounced when improvements are across all domains compared to improvements on the anxiety/depression domain only.

Conclusions: The two approaches produce significantly different utility values in people with mental health conditions. Resulting differences in cost per QALY estimates suggest that thresholds of cost-effectiveness may also need to be reviewed. Researchers and decision-makers should exercise caution when comparing or synthesising data from trials of mental health interventions using different utility estimation approaches.

Keywords: Depression; EuroQol; Health-related quality of life; Mental health; Schizophrenia; Utility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For the COINCIDE trial—the trial was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Preston (NRES/11/NW/0742); research governance approvals were granted by participating primary care trusts. For the EQUIP trial—the trial was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Lancaster (NRES/14/NW/0297). For the FOCUS trial—the trial was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee North West-Lancaster (NRES/12/NW/0520).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of responses on EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (pooled data)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Utility values for the original study samples, by utility estimation approach
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Appleby, L., Asherson, P., Aznar, C., Bebbington, P., Bridges, S., Brugha, T., … Wessely, S. (n.d.). Mental health and wellbeing in England. Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014.
    1. Mental Health Foundation. (2015). Fundamental Facts About Mental Health. Retrieved from https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/fundamental-facts-15....
    1. Saarni SI, Suvisaari J, Sintonen H, Pirkola S, Koskinen S, Aromaa A, Lönnqvist J. Impact of psychiatric disorders on health-related quality of life: General population survey. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2007 - PubMed
    1. Roberts, J., Lenton, P., Keetharuth, A. D., & Brazier, J. (2014). Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: Results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(6). Retrieved from https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-12-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Connell J, Brazier J, O’Cathain A, Lloyd-Jones M, Paisley S. Quality of life of people with mental health problems: A synthesis of qualitative research. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):138. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-138. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources