Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:55.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fit for the future? Status of health-related quality of life research in South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2020

Sophia E. Marsh Open the ORCID record for Sophia E. Marsh [Opens in a new window]  and
Ilse Truter
Sophia E. Marsh*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Drug Utilization Research Unit (DURU), Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Ilse Truter
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Drug Utilization Research Unit (DURU), Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
*
Author for correspondence: Sophia E. Marsh, E-mail: S196022390@mandela.ac.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To provide insights into the attributes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research within the context of economic evaluations for a potential national health technology assessment process in South Africa, and make evidence generation recommendations.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in January 2019 using Medline, the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection and the South African SciELO collection via the WoS Platform, and in the Cochrane Library. No time restrictions were applied. Duplicate records were removed before first- and second-pass screening by two reviewers working independently.

Results

The review identified 123 publications representing 104 studies since the first-published article appeared in 1996. Only eight studies were randomized controlled trials, most were cross-sectional (n = 54). The EQ-5D, SF-36, and WHOQOL-BREF were the most used HRQoL instruments (n = 35, n = 23, and n = 10, respectively). Instruments were frequently administered in multiple languages, reflecting the cultural groups in which the study was conducted, with the English version of instruments used most often. Studies were predominantly conducted within the public health sector (n = 67), in the Western Cape province (n = 46), in adults (n = 92) and people with HIV (n = 24).

Conclusion

South African specific HRQoL studies have been conducted in a range of settings and populations using mostly generic HRQoL instruments in multiple languages. These studies may provide generalizable, real-world data due to their observational nature. However, more comparative and longitudinal studies should be conducted as this is preferred for economic evaluations and patient, disease, and treatment characteristics should be reported in full.

Keywords

South AfricaQuality of lifeCost-utility analysisUtilities
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 508 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

National Department of Health. National health insurance bill. Pretoria: Government Gazette; 2019. p. 60.Google Scholar
National Department of Health. Medicines and Related Substances Act (10 of 1965) regulations relating to a transparent pricing system for medicines and scheduled substances: Publication of the guidelines for pharmacoeconomic submissions. Pretoria: Government Gazette; 2013. p. 3–69.Google Scholar
Carapinha, JL. A comparative review of the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in South Africa. J Med Econ. 2017;20:37–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, SE, Truter, I. Making Connections and Measuring Performance: Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Attribute, Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Research in South Africa. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2020;22:99–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 3rd ed. York: CRD, University of York; 2009.Google Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 updated March 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [cited 2018 Mar 19]; Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.Google Scholar
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. York: CRD, University of York; 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 6]; Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.Google Scholar
Mukuria, C, Rowen, D, Harnan, S, Rawdin, A, Wong, R, Ara, R et al. An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:295–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mapi Research Trust. ePROVIDE. Lyon: Mapi Research Trust; 2019 [cited 2019 Feb 8]; Available from: https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/.Google Scholar
Arber, M, Garcia, S, Veale, T, Edwards, M, Shaw, A, Glanville, JM. Performance of Ovid Medline search filters to identify health state utility studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:472–80.10.1017/S0266462317000897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papaioannou, D, Brazier, J, Paisley, S. NICE DSU technical support document 9: The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. London; 2010.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, K, Henshall, C, Sampietro-Colom, L, Thomas, S. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of evidence production for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:201–6.10.1017/S0266462315000355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabinet. Sabinet African Journals. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 18]; Available from: https://www.sabinet.co.za/information-services/online-journals/african-journals.Google Scholar
Richardson, WS, Wilson, MC, Nishikawa, J, Hayward, RS. The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Government Communications. Official guide to South Africa 2018/19. 16th ed. Government Communications and Information Systems, editor. Pretoria: Government Communications; 2019. 292 p.Google Scholar
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D – Available versions and modes of administration. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 17]; Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/all-eq-5d-versions/.Google Scholar
Karlsson, JA, Nilsson, JA, Neovius, M, Kristensen, LE, Gulfe, A, Saxne, T et al. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-year estimation: Comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:2163–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papaioannou, D, Brazier, J, Paisley, S. Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health 2013;16:686–95.10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faria, R, Hernandez Alava, M, Manca, A, Wailoo, A. NICE DSU Technical Support Unit 17: The use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness in technology appraisal: Methods for comparative individual patient data. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2015.Google Scholar
Matza, LS, Swensen, AR, Flood, EM, Secnik, K, Leidy, NK. Assessment of health-related quality of life in children: A review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004;7:79–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerharz, EW, Eiser, C, Woodhouse, CR. Current approaches to assessing the quality of life in children and adolescents. BJU Int. 2003;91:150–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, A, Mebrahtu, T, Goncalves, PS, Harden, M, Murphy, R, Palmer, S et al. Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: Systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics South Africa. Mortality and causes of death in South Africa, 2016: Findings from death notification. Pretoria: Stats SA; 2019.Google Scholar
van den Heever, A. Country report: South Africa. The Law and Policy of Healthcare Financing: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of South Africa. South Africa's provinces. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 17]; Available from: https://www.gov.za/about-sa/south-africas-provinces.Google Scholar
Council for Medical Schemes. Annual Report 2018/19. Hatfield; 2019.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Marsh and Truter supplementary material

Marsh and Truter supplementary material 1

Download Marsh and Truter supplementary material(File)
File 32 KB
Supplementary material: File

Marsh and Truter supplementary material

Marsh and Truter supplementary material 2

Download Marsh and Truter supplementary material(File)
File 31.3 KB