Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 7-22

  Devlin, Nancy J ^a,b   Shah, Koonal K ^a   Feng, Yan ^a   Mulhern, Brendan ^b,c   van Hout, Ben ^b  

^a Office of Health Economics   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

EQ 5D 5L; NICE; PROMs; quality of life; stated preferences

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANXIETY DISORDER; ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DEPRESSION; ENGLAND; EQ 5D 5L; FACE VALIDITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; PATIENT MOBILITY; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF CARE; VERY ELDERLY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH STATUS; INTERVIEW; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85041409788     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.3564     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., Garay, O. U., Gianneo, O., Fernández, G., … Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2016). An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Quality of Life Research, 25, 323–333.
2. Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 306–318.
3. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.
5. CADTH [Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health] (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [3rd edition]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
6. th March 2016)
7. Devlin, N., & Appleby, J. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMs: Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. London, UK: King's Fund.
8. Devlin, N., & Brooks, R. (2017). EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: Past, present, future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137.
9. Devlin, N., Buckingham, K., Shah, K., Tsuchiya, A., Tilling, C., Wilkinson, G., & van Hout, B. (2013). A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Economics, 22, 517–532.
10. Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2011). A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Economics, 20, 348–361.
11. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.
12. Engel, L., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Doyle-Waters, M. M., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2016). Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 36, 798–810.
13. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of Life—The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Feng, Y., Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2017). New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: An application to English data. Health Economics, 27, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3560
15. Fuller, E., Mindell, J., & Prior, G. (Eds.) (2016). Health Survey for England 2015. London: NHS Digital.
16. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., … Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.
17. Hernández Alava, M., Wailoo, A. J., & Ara, R. (2012). Tails from the Peak District: Adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value in Health, 15, 550–561.
18. Hernandez-Villafuerte, K., Garau, M., & Devlin, N. (2014). Do NICE decisions affect decisions in other countries? Value in Health, 17(7), A418.
19. Janssen, B., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M., & Stolk, E. (2013). Introducing the composite TTO: A test of feasibility and face validity. European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 5–13.
20. Janssen, M. F., Lubetkin, E. I., Sekhobo, J. P., & Pickard, A. S. (2011). The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Medicine, 28, 395–413.
21. Kim, S. H., Ahn, J., Ock, M., Shin, S., Park, J., Luo, N., & Jo, M. W. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 25, 1845–1852.
22. Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Hernandez Alva, M., Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., … Brazier, J. (2014). 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, 18(9).
23. Mulhern, B., Bansback, N., Brazier, J. E., Buckingham, K., Cairns, J., Dolan, P., … Tsuchiya, A. (2014). Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: Methodology report. Health Technology Assessment, 18(12).
24. Mulhern, B., Feng, Y., Shah, K., van Hout, B., Janssen, B., Herdman, M., & Devlin, N. (2017). Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and the English EQ-5D-5L value sets. OHE Research Paper. London, UK: Office of Health Economics.
25. Neumann, P., Ganiats, T. G., Russell, L. B., Sanders, G. D., & Siegel, J. E. (Eds.) (2017). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (Second ed.). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
26. NHS [National Health Service] (2016). GP patient survey: National summary report. London, UK: National Health Service.
27. NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London, UK: National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.
28. th March 2016).
29. Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17, 445–453.
30. Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004.
31. Oppe, M., & van Hout, B. (2010). The optimal hybrid: experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. In J. Yfantopoulos (Ed.), 27th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Proceedings, Athens Greece, September 2010. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group Executive Office.
32. Parkin, D., Devlin, N., & Feng, Y. (2016). What determines the shape of an EQ-5D index distribution? Medicinal Decision Making, 36(8), 941–951.
33. PBAC [Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee] (2016). Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Department of Health.
34. Pickard, A. S., Wilke, C. T., Lin, H. W., & Lloyd, A. (2007). Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. PharmacoEconomics, 25, 365–384.
35. Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Cabasés, J. M., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2014). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283; Applied Methods: PDF Only
36. Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). San Diego, USA: Elsevier.
37. Robinson, A., & Parkin, D. (2002). Recognising diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. Health Economics, 11, 649–651.
38. Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (2006). Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: Valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics, 15, 393–402.
39. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & van Hout, B. (2014). A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale. Medical Decision Making, 35, 328–340.
40. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2008). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
41. Sculpher, M., & Gafni, A. (2001). Recognising diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics, 10, 314–324.
42. Shah, K. K., Lloyd, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2013). One-to-one versus group settings for conducting computer assisted TTO studies: Findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands. European Journal of Health Economics, 14, S65–S73.
43. Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
44. Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., & Buckingham, K. (2010). TTO valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review and conceptual framework for systematic analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30, 610–619.
45. van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y. S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., … Pickard, A. S. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value in Health, 15, 708–715.
46. Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M. A. A., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health, 19, 343–352.
47. Wailoo, A., David, S., & Tosh, J. (2010). The incorporation of health benefits in CUA using EQ-5D. Sheffield: NICE Decision Support Unit.
48. Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., Krabbe, P. F. M., Revicki, D., Viney, R., Devlin, N., & Feeny, D. (2015). A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33, 867–877.
49. Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., … on behalf of the Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study Group, on behalf of the Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study Group (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54, 98–105.