A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada

Medical Care

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 98-105

  Xie, Feng ^a,b   Pullenayegum, Eleanor ^c   Gaebel, Kathy ^a   Bansback, Nick ^d   Bryan, Stirling ^d   Ohinmaa, Arto ^e   Poissant, Lise ^f   Johnson, Jeffrey A ^f  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Program for Health Economics and Outcome Measures (PHENOM)   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

EQ 5D 5L; health preference; Health utility; time trade off; value set

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; CANADA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; EQ 5D 5L SCORE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX; SOCIAL STATUS; VERY ELDERLY; DEVICES; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CANADA; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84952876207     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Ottawa, Canada: CCOHTA; 1997.
2. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Ontario: Ministry of Health; 1994.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada, 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
4. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53-72.
5. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health. 2006;9:213-218.
6. Prosser L, WIttenberg E. Trends in utility elicitation methods: Is there still a role for direct elicitation? In: 32nd Annual Meeting of Society for Medical Decision Making, Toronto, 2010.
7. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727-1736.
8. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, et al. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One. 2012;7:e31115.
9. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van HB, et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445-453.
10. Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, et al. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(suppl 1):S5-13.
11. Devlin N, Shah KK, Mulhern B, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. The EuroQol Group 30th Plenary Meeting. September 12, 2013.
12. Ramos-Goni J, Pinto-Prades J, Cabases JM, et al. Spanish EQ-5D-5L Valuation project: dealing with inconsistencies of C-TTO responses. The EuroQol Group 30th Plenary Meeting. September 12, 2013.
13. Versteegh M, Krabbe P, Evers S, et al. A Dutch tariff for the EQ-5D-5L. The EuroQol Group 30th Plenary Meeting. September 12, 2013.
14. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Bansback N, et al. The Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study: An Exploratory Analysis. The EuroQol Group 30th Plenary Meeting. September 12, 2013.
15. Al Sayah F, Mladenovic A, Gaebel K, et al. How Dead Is Dead? Findings From Interviewing Participants From the Canadian EQVT Valuation Test Retest Study. The EuroQol Group 31th Plenary Meeting. September 25, 2014.
16. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. Was composite TTO a worse-than-dead proposition? The EuroQol Group Plenary Meeting. 2014.
17. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
18. 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.