Valuations of EQ-5D health states: Are the United States and United Kingdom different?

Medical Care

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 221-228

  Johnson, Jeffrey A ^a   Luo, Nan ^a   Shaw, James W ^b   Kind, Paul ^c   Coons, Stephen Joel ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health preference; Health related quality of life; Population survey; Time trade off; Valuation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CULTURAL FACTOR; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 14844334253     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
2. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:85-95.
3. Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113-128.
4. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:191-201.
5. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37: 53-72.
6. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337-343.
7. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: An integrated approach. In: Spilker B, (ed). Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:309-322.
8. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance DG, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
9. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
10. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141-154.
11. Brooks R, Coons SJ, De Cock P, et al. EQ-5D in selected countries around the world. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro, F, eds. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003:207-227.
12. Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Murti B, et al. Comparison of Finnish- and US-based VAS Valuations of the EQ-5D. Med Decis Making. 2000;20: 281-289.
13. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7-16.
14. Busschbach JJv, McDonnell J, Hout BAv. A comparison of EQ-5D time trade-off values obtained in Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, eds. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003:29-41.
15. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
16. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
17. Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:9-18.
18. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11:341-353.
19. Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:919-929.
20. Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:200-207.
21. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl): 138-150, 2000.
22. Lenert LA. The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities. Qual Life Res. 2000; 9:811-817.