Format

Send to

Choose Destination
  • This is a preview / test site. Please update your PubMed URL to pubmed.gov.
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Palliat Med. 2017 Apr;31(4):306-322. doi: 10.1177/0269216316689652. Epub 2017 Feb 13.

The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: Mapping the debate through an integrative review.

Author information

  • 11 IQ healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • 22 Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • 33 End-of-life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium.
  • 44 Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • 5PACE: Palliative Care in Care Homes Across Europe. An EU-funded international research project.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care.

AIM:

To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care.

DESIGN:

The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped.

DATA SOURCES:

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

FINDINGS:

Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied.

CONCLUSION:

The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to-in addition to the EQ-5D- make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year.

KEYWORDS:

Quality-Adjusted Life Year; cost-effectiveness analysis; debate; palliative care

PMID:
28190374
PMCID:
PMC5405846
DOI:
10.1177/0269216316689652
[PubMed - in process]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Atypon Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center