A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: Development and testing for the German population

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 521-534

  Leidl, Reiner ^a,b   Reitmeir, Peter ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Quality of life rating scales; Utility measurement

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EQ 5D; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79956153061     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International com- parisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health 2009 Nov; 12 (8): 1194-200.
2. Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, et al. Comparison of population health status in six European countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care 2009 Feb; 47 (2): 255-61.
3. Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (9): 767-79.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Up- dated guidetothe methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdated June2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 26].
5. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 Nov; 35 (11): 1095-108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
6. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, et al. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005 Jun; 6 (2): 124-30. (Pubitemid 40905009)
7. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J 2008 Jan; 118 (525): 215-34.
8. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the ba- sics. Value Health 2009 Mar; 12 Suppl. 1: S5-9.
9. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4 (4): 201-8. (Pubitemid 43242208)
10. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003 Sep; 12 (6): 599-607. (Pubitemid 37094023)
11. Dolders MGT, Zeegers MPA, Groot W, et al. A meta- analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 Jul; 59 (7): 653-64. (Pubitemid 43825720)
12. Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of pa- tients and the general publicanalytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010 Mar; 13 (2): 306-9.
13. Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ 2009 Mar; 18 (3): 363-72
14. Broome J. QALYs. J Public Econ 1993; 50: 19
15. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making 2001 Jan-Feb; 21 (1): 17-27. (Pubitemid 32245027)
16. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001 Jul-Aug; 21 (4): 329-34. (Pubitemid 32652496)
17. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006 Jul; 15 (7): 653-64. (Pubitemid 44057237)
18. Cheung K, Oema M, Oppe M, et al. EQ-5D user guide: basic information in how to use EQ-5D. Version 2.0 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euroqol. org/fileadmin/user-upload/Documenten/PDF/User-Guide-v2-March-2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 26].
19. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (5): 365-84. (Pubitemid 46744468)
20. Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 2006 Jan; 92 (1): 62-7. (Pubitemid 43021857)
21. Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010 Jan; 16 (1): 42-51.
22. Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, et al. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2006 Mar-Apr; 26 (2): 173-81.
23. Mielck A, Vogelmann M, Schweikert B, et al. Health status of adults in Germany: results from a representative survey using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) [in German]. Ge-sundheitswesen 2010; 72 (8-9): 476-86.
24. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 Mar-Apr; 5 (2): 141-54. (Pubitemid 126484860)
25. Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Claes C, Greiner W, et al. The German version of the EuroQol questionnaire [in German]. Z Gesundh Wiss 1998; 6: 3-20.
26. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2003: 143-65.
27. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Med Care 2009 Jan; 47 (1): 53-60.
28. Bernert S, Fernandez A, Haro JM, et al. Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries. Value Health. Epub 2009 Mar 10.
29. Stevens K, McCabe C, Brazier J, et al. Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: a comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system. J Health Econ 2007 Sep 1; 26 (5): 992-1002. (Pubitemid 47239111)
30. Leidl R. Preferences, quality of life and public health. Eur J Public Health 2009 Jun; 19 (3): 228-9.
31. Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005 Mar; 14 (3): 217-30. (Pubitemid 40360759)
32. Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, et al. A linear index for pre- dicting joint health-states utilities from single health-states utilities. Health Econ 2009 Apr; 18 (4): 403-19