IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i11d10.1007_s40273-023-01280-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Slovenia

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Prevolnik Rupel

    (Institute for Economic Research
    DOBA Faculty)

  • Marko Ogorevc

    (Institute for Economic Research)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this valuation study was to produce a value set to support the use of EQ-5D-5L data in decision making in Slovenia. Methods The study design followed the published EuroQol research protocol, and a quota sample was defined according to age, sex, and region. Overall, 1012 adult respondents completed 10 time trade-off and seven discrete choice experiment tasks in face-to-face interviews. The Tobit model was used to analyse the composite time trade-off (cTTO) data in order to generate values for the 3125 EQ-5D-5L health states. Results The data showed logical consistency, with more severe states being given lower values. The greatest disutility was shown in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. In the EQ-5D-5L value set, the values range from −1.09 to 1. With the exception of UA5 (unable to perform usual activities), all other levels on all health dimensions were statistically different from 0 and from each other. Compared with the existing EQ-5D-3L value set, there is a slightly lower share of ‘worse than dead’ states (32.1% compared with 33.7%) and the minimum value is lower. Conclusions Results have important implications for users of the EQ-5D-5L in Slovenia and regions. It is a robust and up-to-date value set and should be the preferred value set used in adults in Slovenia and in neighbouring countries without their own value set.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(11), pages 1515-1524, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01280-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01280-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-023-01280-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-023-01280-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    2. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    3. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    4. Angela Robinson & Anne E. Spencer & José Luís Pinto-Prades & Judith A. Covey, 2017. "Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 273-284, April.
    5. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    6. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena Olariu & Wael Mohammed & Yemi Oluboyede & Raluca Caplescu & Ileana Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Marian Sorin Paveliu & Luke Vale, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L: a value set for Romania," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 399-412, April.
    2. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    4. Andrew Lloyd & Kim Rand & Cleo Pike & Crispin Ellis, 2024. "Preference-based utility weights for the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life Questionnaire (INQoL), with a focus on non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1461-1469, November.
    5. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Ernest H. Law & A. Simon Pickard & Feng Xie & Surrey M. Walton & Todd A. Lee & Alan Schwartz, 2018. "Parallel Valuation: A Direct Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Societal Value Sets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(8), pages 968-982, November.
    7. Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    8. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    9. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    10. Julio Emilio Marco-Franco & Pedro Pita-Barros & Silvia González-de-Julián & Iryna Sabat & David Vivas-Consuelo, 2021. "Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Jacob Smith, 2023. "Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach," Papers 2311.07905, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Henry, Edward & Cullinan, John, 2021. "Mental health spillovers from serious family illness: Doubly robust estimation using EQ-5D-5L population normative data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    13. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    14. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    15. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Julie A. Campbell & Glen J. Henson & Valery Fuh Ngwa & Hasnat Ahmad & Bruce V. Taylor & Ingrid Mei & Andrew J. Palmer, 2025. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities from a Large Cohort (> 6000) of Australians Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for Changing Disability Severity Classifications, MS Phenotype, and Disease-Modif," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 223-239, February.
    17. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    18. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    19. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    20. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01280-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.