International comparisons in valuing eq-5d health states: A review and analysis

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1194-1200

  Norman, Richard ^a   Cronin, Paula ^a   Viney, Rosalie ^a   King, Madeleine ^b   Street, Deborah ^a   Ratcliffe, Julie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; EQ 5D; Health economics methods; Health related quality of life

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CULTURAL FACTOR; EUROQOL 5D; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 70350746210     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Gold M. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : OUP, 1996.
2. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002 360 : 711 715.
3. Taylor R. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: government agency perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001 19 (Suppl. 2 S33 8.
4. Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee (version 4.2). Canberra, 2007. Available from: http://www.Health.Gov.Au/internet/main/publishing.Nsf/content/ pbacguidelines-index [Accessed June 30, 2008 J, Deverill M, Green C. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999 3 : i iv, 1 164.
5. Spilker B. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA : Lippencott-Raven, 1996.
6. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001 33 : 358 370.
7. Bansback N, Davis S, Brazier J. Using contrast sensitivity to estimate the cost-effectiveness of verteporfin in patients with predominantly classic age-related macular degeneration. Eye 2007 21 : 1455 1463.
8. 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.
9. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy 1996 38 : 189 203. (Pubitemid 26338161)
10. 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.
11. Busschbach JJ, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. 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. Berlin : Springer, 2003.
12. 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.
13. Bjork S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ 1999 8 : 117 126.
14. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams A. Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations - a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Econ 2003 12 : 529 544.
15. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 35 : 1095 1108.
16. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 6 : 124 130.
17. Jelsma J, Hansen K, De Weerdt W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. How do Zimbabweans value health states? Popul Health Metr 2003 1 : 11.
18. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 2006 15 : 1121 1132.
19. 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.
20. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen JT, Gudex C, et al. Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using the time trade-off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) methods. In : Norinder A, Pedersen KL, Roos P, eds. Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Copenhagen : EuroQol Group, 2001.
21. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006 15 : 653 664.
22. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellan-Perpinan JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. J Health Econ 2003 22 : 1037 1052.
23. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994 14 : 82 90.
24. Unic I, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC, van Daal WA. Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med Decis Making 1998 18 : 268 277.
25. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population study. Centre for health economics York discussion paper no. 138 York: Centre for Health Economics, 1995.
26. Macran S, Kind P. Valuing the EQ-5D health states using a modified MVH protocol: preliminary results. Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Stiges, Spain : Institute de Salut Publica de Catalunya, 1999.
27. Nan L, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Coons SJ. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med Decis Making 2007 27 : 321 326.
28. Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. The implications of using US-specific EQ-5D preference weights for cost-effectiveness evaluation. Med Decis Making 2007 27 : 327 334.