Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D

Value in Health

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 343-352

  Versteegh, Matthijs ^a   M Vermeulen, Karin ^b   M A A Evers, Silvia ^c,d   de Wit, G Ardine ^e,f   Prenger, Rilana ^g   A Stolk, Elly ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

discrete choice experiment; EQ 5D 5L; time trade off; utility measurement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPOSITE TIME TRADE OFF; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DUTCH TARIFF; EUROQOL FIVE DIMENSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE; EXPERIMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEASUREMENT; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; ADOLESCENT; ALGORITHM; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84962089338     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. [1] 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 20 (2011), 1727–1736.
2. [2] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. Available from: 〈http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9〉. [Accessed June 11, 2015].
3. [3] Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J., A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13 (2004), 873–884.
4. [4] Bharmal, M., Thomas, J., Comparing the EQ‐5D and the SF‐6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9 (2006), 262–271.
5. [5] Versteegh, M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C., Stolk, E., Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden?. Value Health 15 (2012), 504–513.
6. [6] Janssen, M., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J., Bonsel, G., Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11 (2008), 275–284.
7. [7] Janssen, M., Birnie, E., Bonsel, G., Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res 17 (2008), 463–473.
8. [8] Pickard, A., De Leon, M., Kohlmann, T., et al. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45 (2007), 259–263.
9. [9] Pickard, A.S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M.F., et al. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Med Care 45 (2007), 812–819.
10. [10] Knies, S., Evers, S., Candel, M., et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not?. Pharmacoeconomics 27 (2009), 767–779.
11. [11] Oppe, M., Devlin, N.J., van Hout, B., et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 17 (2014), 445–453.
12. [12] Devlin, N., Krabbe, P.M., The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 1–3.
13. [13] Shah, K., Lloyd, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N., One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 65–73.
14. [14] Luo, N., Li, M., Stolk, E., Devlin, N., The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 15–24.
15. [15] Versteegh, M., Attema, A., Oppe, M., et al. Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 43–51.
16. [16] Ramos-Goni, J., Rivero-Arias, O., Errea, M., et al. Dealing with the health state “dead” when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L health states. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 33–42.
17. [17] Janssen, M., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M., Stolk, E., Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 5–13.
18. [18] Attema, A., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M., Stolk, E., Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 53–64.
19. [19] Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., et al. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 25–31.
20. [20] Stolk, E., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., Krabbe, P., Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health 13 (2010), 1005–1013.
21. [21] Krabbe, P., Devlin, N., Stolk, E., et al. Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care 52 (2014), 935–943.
22. [22] Brazier, J., Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic. Evaluation, 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
23. [23] Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making 30 (2010), 610–619.
24. [24] Oppe, M., van Hout, B., The optimal hybrid: experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. Presented at: 27th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group-Proceedings. 2010, EuroQol Group Executive Office, Rotterdam, the Netherlands [Accessed June 11, 2015].
25. [25] Lamers, L.M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P.F.M., et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 15 (2006), 1121–1132.
26. [26] Janssen, M., Pickard, A.S., Golicki, D., et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 22 (2013), 1717–1727.
27. [27] Dolan, P., Modeling valuations for the EuroQol health states. Med Care 35 (1997), 1095–1108.
28. [28] Shaw, J.W., Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J., US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43 (2005), 203–220.
29. [29] Bonsel GJ, Oppe M, Janssen MF. Unexpected large misspecification effects of health profile selection and interaction analysis to obtain a value function from unsaturated valuation datasets, using the standard EuroQol approach. Presented at: EuroQoL Proceedings Plenary Meeting. Stockholm, Sweden, September 25-26, 2014.
30. [30] Shah K, Rand-Hendriksen K, Ramos-Goni J, et al. Improving the quality of data collected in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: a summary of the EQ-VT research methodology programme. Presented at: 31st EuroQol Scientific Plenary Meeting. Stockholm, Sweden, September 25-26, 2014.