EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 127-137

  Devlin, Nancy J ^a   Brooks, Richard ^b  

^a Office of HealthEconomics   (United Kingdom)

^b EuroQol Group   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EQ 5D; EUROQOL; GENERAL HEALTH STATUS ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EUROPE; FORECASTING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTHY DIET; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EUROPE; FORECASTING; HEALTHY DIET; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 85012295559     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;36:199–208.
2. Brooks R, on behalf of the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
3. Brooks R. The EuroQol group after 25 years. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
4. Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 19–27.
5. Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin N. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res. 2014. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z.
6. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper 138. York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995.
7. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2013.
8. Nice. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.
9. Fox-Rushby J, Selai C. What concepts does the EQ-5D measure? Intentions and interpretations. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003. p. 167–82.
10. Rabin R, Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. Exploring the results of translating the EQ-5D into 11 European languages. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003. p. 191–205.
11. Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17:70–6.
12. Bonsel G, van Agt H. The number of levels in the descriptive system. In: Busschbach J, Bonsel G, de Charro F, editors. Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, Rotterdam October 1993. Rotterdam: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment; 1994. p. 115–20.
13. Kind P, Macran S. Levelling the playing field: increasing the number of response categories in EQ-5D. In Kind P, Macran S, editors. 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers, York, UK, September 2002. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2002. p. 311–22.
14. 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 2 methods. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:463–73.
15. Pickard S, de Leon M, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45:259–63.
16. Janssen M, Birnie E, Haagsma J, Bonsel G. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three level system with a five level version. Value Health. 2008;11:275–84.
17. Pickard S, Kohlmann T, Janssen M, Bonsel G, Rosenbloom S, Cella D. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Med Care. 2007;45:812–9.
18. Herdman M, Kind P, Chevalier J, Gudex C, de Pourvourville G. Investigation of labels for additional EQ-5D levels: results of the main study + 1. In: Busschbach J, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. 24th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Proceedings. The Hague: EuroQol Group; 2007. p. 99–151.
19. Lloyd A, Quadri N. Testing alternative labels for a UK English five level version of EQ-5D. In: Scalone L, Mantovani LG, editors. 25th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Proceedings. Baveno: EuroQol Group; 2008. p. 41–73.
20. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
21. Hennessy S, Kind P. Measuring health status in children: developing and testing a child-friendly version of EQ-5D. In: Kind P, Macran S, editors. 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers, York, UK, September 2002. York: Centre for Health Economics, 2002. p. 291–310.
22. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A-C, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Scalone L, Ravens-Sieberer U. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:887–97.
23. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A-C, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Olivares P, Scalone L, Greiner W. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:887–97.
24. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, editors. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
25. van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard S. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.
26. 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. 2010;13(8):1005–13.
27. http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-publications/5l-valuation.html.
28. Oppe M, Devlin N, van Hout B, Krabbe P, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–63.
29. EuroQol Group 2016a. EuroQol Group 2015a. http://www.euroqol.org/euroqol/vision.html. Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
30. EuroQol Group 2016b. EuroQol Group 2015b. http://www.euroqol.org/euroqol/mission.html. Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
31. Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. Using patient reported outcomes to improve health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2015.
32. Calvert M, Thwaites R, Kyte D, Devlin N. Putting patient-reported outcomes on the ‘Big Data Road Map’. J R Soc Med. 2015;108:299–303.
33. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Hernandez Alva M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment No. 18.9. 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK261616/. Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
34. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18:52–60.
35. Swinburn S, Lloyd A, Boye K, Edson-Heredia E, Bowman L, Janssen B. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health. 2013;16(1156–62):36.
36. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system: a “bolt-on” experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:42–53.
37. Lorgelly P. Choice of outcome measure in economic evaluation: a potential role for the capability approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:849–55. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0275-x.
38. Devlin N, Lorgelly P. QALYs as a measure of value in cancer. J Cancer Policy. doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2016-09-005.
39. Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:557–65. doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0194-1.
40. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1. doi:10.1007/s40273-012-0001-x.
41. Bansback N, Trenaman L, Bryan S, Johnson J. 2015 using routine patient reported outcome measures to enhance patient decision making: a proof of concept study. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:109.
42. Tsuchiya A, Williams A. Welfare economics and economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 27–8.
43. Brazier J, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:705–12.
44. Kind P. Cost-effectiveness analysis: a view into the abyss. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;3:269–71.
45. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1–10.
46. Yong C, Jiang Y, Sun D, Duttagupta S. Evolution and influence of HTA in emerging markets. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1805.
47. Glassman A, Giedion U, McQueston K. Priority setting for health in emerging markets. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2:283–91. doi:10.2217/cer.13.12.
48. Yang B. The future of health technology assessment in healthcare decision making in Asia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:891. doi:10.2165/11310280-000000000-00000.