Preference weights for the spectrum of alcohol use in the US Population
Preference weights for the spectrum of alcohol use in the US Population
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.004
复制
发表时间：
2016-04-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Devine, Beth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chavez, Laura J.;Bradley, Katharine;Devine, Beth
背景：对基于人群的酒精干预的成本效用知之甚少。研究的一个障碍是缺乏计算质量调整生命年（QHMS）所需的偏好权重。偏好权重可以从健康相关生活质量（HRQOL）的测量中估计。本研究的目的是描述偏好权重的全谱alcohol use.Methods：这一横断面研究包括参与者在全国健康访谈调查（NHIS; 1999-2002年）和医疗支出小组调查（MEPS; 2000-2003年）。AUDIT-C酒精筛查来自NHIS，评分分为6组（0，1 -3，4-5，6-7，8- 9，10 -12分），范围从不饮酒（0）到非常严重的不健康饮酒（10-12分）。使用链接的数据集和根据人口统计学调整的分析，将AUDIT-C评分映射到EQ-5D和SF-6D偏好权重。结果：在17，440名参与者中，平均EQ-5D和SF-6D偏好权重分别为0.82（95%CI 0.82-0.83）和0.79（95%CI 0.79-0.80）。不饮酒（0.80; 95% CI 0.79-0.81）和中度不健康饮酒（0.85; 95% CI 0.84-0.86）的校正EQ-5D偏好权重与低风险饮酒（0.83; 95% CI 0.83-0.84）存在显著差异，但其他差异均不显著。SF-GD的结果是similar.Conclusions：这项研究提供了EQ-5D和SF-6D偏好权重的各种酒精使用类别在一个代表性的美国成年人样本。然而，这两项指标均未显示基于AUDIT-C类别的HRQOL存在有意义的差异。自我报告的饮酒量可能与偏好权重无关，或者通用工具可能无法捕获HRQOL中与酒精相关的差异。(c)2016爱思唯尔爱尔兰有限公司版权所有。
Background: Little is known about the cost-utility of population-based alcohol interventions. One barrier to research has been the lack of preference weights needed to calculate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Preference weights can be estimated from measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this study was to describe preference weights for the full spectrum of alcohol use.Methods: This cross-sectional study included participants in both the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1999-2002) and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; 2000-2003). The AUDIT-C alcohol screen was derived from NHIS with scores categorized into 6 groups (0,1-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9,10-12 points), ranging from nondrinking (0) to very severe unhealthy alcohol use (10-12). AUDIT-C scores were mapped to EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights using the linked datasets and analyses adjusted for demographics.Results: Among 17,440 participants, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights were 0.82 (95% CI 0.82-0.83) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.79-0.80), respectively. Adjusted EQ-5D preference weights for nondrinking (0.80; 95% CI 0.79-0.81) and moderate unhealthy drinking (0.85; 95% CI 0.84-0.86) were significantly different from low-risk drinking (0.83; 95% CI 0.83-0.84), but no other differences were significant. Results for the SF-GD were similar.Conclusions: This study provides EQ-5D and SF-6D preference weights for various alcohol use categories in a representative U.S. adult sample. However, neither measure suggested meaningful differences in HRQOL based on AUDIT-C categories. Self-reported alcohol consumption may not be associated with preference weights or generic instruments may not capture alcohol-related differences in HRQOL. (c) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.