» Articles » PMID: 38403720

Measuring EQ-5D-5L Utility Values in Parents Who Have Experienced Perinatal Death

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2024 Feb 25
PMID 38403720
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Policymakers use clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to support decisions about health service commissioning. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that in cost-effectiveness analyses "effectiveness" is measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), derived from health utility values. The impact of perinatal death (stillbirth/neonatal death) on parents' health utility is currently unknown. This knowledge would improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness evidence for policymakers.

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the impact of perinatal death on parents' health utility.

Methods: An online survey conducted with mothers and fathers in England who experienced a perinatal death. Participants reported how long ago their baby died and whether they/their partner subsequently became pregnant again. They were asked to rate their health on the EQ-5D-5L instrument (generic health measure). EQ-5D-5L responses were used to calculate health utility values. These were compared with age-matched values for the general population to estimate a utility shortfall (i.e. health loss) associated with perinatal death.

Results: There were 256 survey respondents with a median age of 40 years (IQR 26-40). Median time since death was 27 months (IQR 8-71). The mean utility value of the sample was 0.774 (95% CI 0.752-0.796). Utility values in the sample were 13% lower than general population values (p < 0.05). Over 10 years, this equated to a loss of 1.1 QALYs. This reduction in health utility was driven by anxiety and depression.

Conclusions: Perinatal death has important and long-lasting health impacts on parents. Mental health support following perinatal bereavement is especially important.

References
1.
Santos A, Guerra-Junior A, Godman B, Morton A, Ruas C . Cost-effectiveness thresholds: methods for setting and examples from around the world. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018; 18(3):277-288. DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1443810. View

2.
Veettil S, Kategeaw W, Hejazi A, Workalemahu T, Rothwell E, Silver R . The economic burden associated with stillbirth: A systematic review. Birth. 2023; 50(2):300-309. DOI: 10.1111/birt.12714. View

3.
Ogwulu C, Jackson L, Heazell A, Roberts T . Exploring the intangible economic costs of stillbirth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15:188. PMC: 4556317. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0617-x. View

4.
Burden C, Bradley S, Storey C, Ellis A, Heazell A, Downe S . From grief, guilt pain and stigma to hope and pride - a systematic review and meta-analysis of mixed-method research of the psychosocial impact of stillbirth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:9. PMC: 4719709. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0800-8. View

5.
Phillips J, Millum J . Valuing Stillbirths. Bioethics. 2014; 29(6):413-23. PMC: 4706157. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12120. View