残疾权重测量研究的系统文献综述:方法选择的演变
A systematic literature review of disability weights measurement studies: evolution of methodological choices.
作者信息
Charalampous Periklis, Polinder Suzanne, Wothge Jördis, von der Lippe Elena, Haagsma Juanita A
机构信息
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
German Environment Agency, Section Noise Abatement of Industrial Plants and Products, Noise Impact, Wörlitzer Pl. 1, 06844, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
出版信息
Arch Public Health. 2022 Mar 24;80(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00860-z.
BACKGROUND
The disability weight is an essential factor to estimate the healthy time that is lost due to living with a certain state of illness. A 2014 review showed a considerable variation in methods used to derive disability weights. Since then, several sets of disability weights have been developed. This systematic review aimed to provide an updated and comparative overview of the methodological design choices and surveying techniques that have been used in disability weights measurement studies and how they evolved over time.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in multiple international databases (early-1990 to mid-2021). Records were screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. The quality of the included disability weights measurement studies was assessed using the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies (CREATE) instrument. Studies were collated by characteristics and methodological design approaches. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and discussed with a second.
RESULTS
Forty-six unique disability weights measurement studies met our eligibility criteria. More than half (n = 27; 59%) of the identified studies assessed disability weights for multiple ill-health outcomes. Thirty studies (65%) described the health states using disease-specific descriptions or a combination of a disease-specific descriptions and generic-preference instruments. The percentage of studies obtaining health preferences from a population-based panel increased from 14% (2004-2011) to 32% (2012-2021). None of the disability weight studies published in the past 10 years used the annual profile approach. Most studies performed panel-meetings to obtain disability weights data.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review reveals that a methodological uniformity between national and GBD disability weights studies increased, especially from 2010 onwards. Over years, more studies used disease-specific health state descriptions in line with those of the GBD study, panel from general populations, and data from web-based surveys and/or household surveys. There is, however, a wide variation in valuation techniques that were used to derive disability weights at national-level and that persisted over time.
背景
残疾权重是估计因患有某种疾病状态而损失的健康时间的一个重要因素。2014年的一项综述显示,用于得出残疾权重的方法存在很大差异。从那时起,已经开发了几套残疾权重。本系统综述旨在提供一个关于残疾权重测量研究中所使用的方法设计选择和调查技术及其随时间演变情况的更新的比较性概述。
方法
在多个国际数据库(1990年初至2021年年中)中进行文献检索。根据预先定义的纳入标准筛选记录。使用报告估值研究清单(CREATE)工具评估纳入的残疾权重测量研究的质量。研究按特征和方法设计方法进行整理。由一名审阅者进行数据提取,并与第二名审阅者进行讨论。
结果
46项独特的残疾权重测量研究符合我们的纳入标准。超过一半(n = 27;59%)已识别研究评估了多种不良健康结局的残疾权重。30项研究(65%)使用特定疾病描述或特定疾病描述与通用偏好工具相结合来描述健康状态。从基于人群的小组中获得健康偏好的研究比例从14%(2004 - 2011年)增加到32%(2012 - 2021年)。过去10年发表的残疾权重研究中没有一项使用年度概况方法。大多数研究通过小组会议来获取残疾权重数据。
结论
我们的综述表明国家和全球疾病负担(GBD)残疾权重研究之间的方法一致性有所提高,尤其是从2010年起。多年来越来越多的研究使用与GBD研究一致的特定疾病健康状态描述、来自普通人群的小组以及基于网络调查和/或家庭调查的数据。然而,在国家层面用于得出残疾权重的估值技术仍存在很大差异且长期持续存在。