Search

Population norms for the EQ-5D-5L were published in Canada but only for Alberta province. The purpose of this study was to derive Quebec population norms from the EQ-5D-5L.The data came from a larger study conducted between September 2016 and March 2018 using elicitation techniques for a quality-adjusted life-year project. The online survey was distributed randomly in the province of Quebec. To best describe the entire population, data were stratified by various sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, urban and rural populations, whether disadvantaged or not, immigrant or nonimmigrant, and health problems.A total of 2704 (53.8%) respondents completed the EQ-5D-5L. Mean (95% confidence interval) and median (interquartile range) utility scores were 0.824 (0.818-0.829) and 0.867 (0.802-0.911), respectively. The EQ-VAS scores were estimated at 75.9 (75.2-76.6) and 80 (69-90). Subjects with lower scores were those who had a low or high body mass index; were smokers; were single, divorced, or widowed; had no children; were unemployed or sick; had lower education or lower annual income; and had a family or personal history of serious illness. Immigrants had higher scores. There was no difference in gender and urban or rural population. The score logically decreased with worsening health status, from a mean score of 0.896 (0.884-0.908) to 0.443 (0.384-0.501; P.0001. Similar results were observed for subjects' satisfaction with their health or life. Subjects with lower scores were less willing to take risks. Subjects who declared they were affected by health problems presented significant lower utility scores, ranging from 0.554 (nervous problem) to 0.750 (cancer), compared with those without health problems (0.871; confidence interval: 0.867-0.876).This is the first study to present utility score norms for EQ-5D-5L for the Quebec population. These results will be useful for comparison with quality-adjusted life-year studies to better interpret their results. Moreover, utility norms were provided for 21 health problems, which was rarely done.

Economic assessment is of utmost importance in the healthcare decision-making process. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept provides a rare opportunity to combine two crucial aspects of health, i.e., mortality and morbidity, into a single index to perform cost-utility comparison. Today, many tools are available to measure morbidity in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a large literature describes how to use them. Knowing their characteristics and development process is a key point for elaborating, adapting, or selecting the most well-suited instrument for further needs. In this aim, we conducted a systematic review on instruments used for QALY calculation, and 46 studies were selected after searches in four databases: Medline EBSCO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. The search procedure was done to identify all relevant publications up to 18 June 2020. We mainly focused on the type of instrument developed (i.e., generic or specific), the number and the nature of dimensions and levels used, the elicitation method and the model selected to determine utility scores, and the instrument and algorithm validation methods. Results show that studies dealing with the development of specific instruments were mostly motivated by the inappropriateness of generic instruments in their field. For the dimensions’ and levels’ selection, item response theory, Rasch analysis, and literature review were mostly used. Dimensions and levels were validated by methods like the Loevinger H, the standardised response mean, or discussions with experts in the field. The time trade-off method was the most widely used elicitation method, followed by the visual analogue scale. Random effects regression models were frequently used in determining utility scores.

ObjectiveConduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of FreeO2technology versus manual oxygen-titration technology for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalised for acute exacerbations.SettingTertiary acute care hospital in Quebec, Canada.Participants47 patients with COPD hospitalised for acute exacerbations.InterventionAn automated oxygen-titration and oxygen-weaning technology.Methods and outcomesThe costs for hospitalisation and follow-up for 180 days were calculated using a microcosting approach and included the cost of FreeO2technology. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using bootstrap resampling with 5000 replications. The main effect variable was the percentage of time spent at the target oxygen saturation (SpO2). The other two effect variables were the time spent in hyperoxia (target SpO2+5%) and in severe hypoxaemia (SpO2ResultsFreeO2generated savings of 20.7% of the per-patient costs at 180 days (ie, −$C2959.71). This decrease is nevertheless not significant at the 95% threshold (P=0.13), but the effect variables all improved (P2was 56.3%. The ICERs indicate that FreeO2technology is more cost-effective than manual oxygen titration with a savings of −$C96.91 per percentage point of time spent at the target SpO2(95% CI −301.26 to 116.96).ConclusionFreeO2technology could significantly enhance the efficiency of the health system by reducing per-patient costs at 180 days. A study with a larger patient sample needs to be carried out to confirm these preliminary results.Trial registration numberNCT01393015; Post-results.