IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v27y2018i1p23-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Feng
  • Nancy J. Devlin
  • Koonal K. Shah
  • Brendan Mulhern
  • Ben van Hout

Abstract

Value sets for the EQ‐5D‐5L are required to facilitate its use in estimating quality‐adjusted life years. An international protocol has been developed to guide the collection of stated preference data for this purpose and has been used to generate EQ‐5D‐5L valuation data for England. The aim of this paper is report the innovative methods used for modelling those data to obtain a value set. Nine hundred and ninety‐six members of the English general public completed time trade‐off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. We estimate models, with and without interactions, using DCE data only, TTO data only, and TTO/DCE data combined. TTO data are interpreted as both left and right censored. Heteroskedasticity and preference heterogeneity between individuals are accounted for. We use Bayesian methods in the econometric analysis. The final model is chosen based on the deviance information criterion (DIC). Censoring and taking account of heteroskedasticity have important effects on parameter estimation. For DCE data only, TTO data only, and DCE/TTO data combined, models with parameters for all dimensions and levels perform best, as judged by the DIC. Taking account of heterogeneity improves fit, and the multinomial model reports the lowest DIC. This paper presents approaches that suit observed characteristics of EQ‐5D‐5L valuation data and recognise respondents' preference heterogeneity. The methods described are potentially relevant to other value set studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Feng & Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 23-38, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:23-38
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3560
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3560?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin & Ken Buckingham & Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Carl Tilling & Grahame Wilkinson & Ben van Hout, 2013. "A Comparison Of Alternative Variants Of The Lead And Lag Time Tto," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 517-532, May.
    2. Nancy Devlin & Paul Krabbe, 2013. "The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 1-3, July.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    4. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    5. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 699-713, June.
    2. Mike Herdman & Jameel Nazir & Zalmai Hakimi & Emad Siddiqui & Moses Huang & Marco Pavesi & Scott MacDiarmid & Marcus J. Drake & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "Assessing Preference-Based Outcome Measures for Overactive Bladder: An Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Data from the BESIDE Clinical Trial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 677-686, December.
    3. Eliza L. Y. Wong & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Annie W. L. Cheung & Amy Y. K. Wong & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2018. "Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 235-247, April.
    4. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    5. Yiu, Hei Hang Edmund & Buckell, John & Petrou, Stavros & Stewart-Brown, Sarah & Madan, Jason, 2023. "Derivation of a UK preference-based value set for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) to allow estimation of Mental Well-being Adjusted Life Years (MWALYs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    6. Nancy Devlin & John Brazier & A. Simon Pickard & Elly Stolk, 2018. "3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 637-640, June.
    7. 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).
    8. Anna Selivanova & Erik Buskens & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2018. "Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 715-725, June.
    9. Micah Rose & Stephen Rice & Dawn Craig, 2018. "Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 97-107, June.
    10. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    11. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    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. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    3. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Hobbins, Anna P. & Barry, Luke & Kelleher, Dan & Shah, Koonal & Devlin, Nancy & Ramos Goni, Juan Manuel & O’Neill, Ciaran, 2020. "Do people with private health insurance attach a higher value to health than those without insurance? Results from an EQ-5D-5 L valuation study in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 639-646.
    6. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, August.
    7. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    9. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    11. Irina Cleemput & Paul Kind & Katrien Kesteloot, 2004. "Re-scaling social preference data: implications for modelling," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(4), pages 290-298, November.
    12. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    13. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    14. Lyttkens, Carl Hampus & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Tinghög, Gustav, 2018. "Do We Know What We Are Doing? An Exploratory Study on Swedish Health Economists and the EQ-5D," Working Papers 2018:40, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    16. Ling-Hsiang Chuang & Paul Kind, 2011. "The Effect of Health State Selection on the Valuation of EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 186-194, January.
    17. Rachel J. Knott & Nicole Black & Bruce Hollingsworth & Paula K. Lorgelly, 2017. "Response‐Scale Heterogeneity in the EQ‐5D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 387-394, March.
    18. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    19. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    20. Julie Chevalier & Gérard Pouvourville, 2013. "Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 57-66, February.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:23-38. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.