IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v27y2018i1p7-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

Abstract

A new version of the EQ‐5D, the EQ‐5D‐5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ‐5D‐5L data in decision‐making. The study design followed an international research protocol. Randomly selected members of the English general public completed 10 time trade‐off and 7 discrete choice experiment tasks in face‐to‐face interviews. A 20‐parameter hybrid model was used to combine time trade‐off and discrete choice experiment data to generate values for the 3,125 EQ‐5D‐5L health states. Valuation data are available for 996 respondents. Face validity of the data has been demonstrated, with more severe health states generally given lower values. Problems with pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression received the greatest weight. Compared to the existing EQ‐5D‐3L value set, there are considerably fewer “worse than dead” states (5.1%, compared with over one third), and the minimum value is higher. Values range from −0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ‐5D‐5L both in England and internationally. Quality‐adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:7-22
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3564?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. Angela Robinson & David Parkin, 2002. "Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 649-651, October.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham & Carl Tilling, 2011. "A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 348-361, March.
    4. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    7. Nancy Devlin;John Appleby, 2010. "Getting the Most out of PROMs: Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision-Making," Monograph 000220, Office of Health Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    10. Koonal Shah & Andrew Lloyd & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 65-73, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    4. Koonal Shah & Andrew Lloyd & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 65-73, July.
    5. Matthijs Versteegh & Arthur Attema & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 43-51, July.
    6. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Meregaglia, Michela & Ciani, Oriana & Roudijk, Bram & Jommi, Claudio, 2022. "An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Federico Augustovski & Lucila Rey-Ares & Vilma Irazola & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 25-31, July.
    9. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    10. Liv Ariane Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "Impact of Transformation of Negative Values and Regression Models on Differences Between the UK and US EQ-5D Time Trade-Off Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1203-1214, December.
    11. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2013. "Would You Rather Be Ill Now, Or Later?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1496-1506, December.
    12. Jennifer Roberts & Paul Dolan, 2004. "To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ‐5D valuation set," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 733-737, July.
    13. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    14. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    16. José Luis Pinto-Prades & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "The Lead Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 305-315, April.
    17. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    18. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    19. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    20. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.

    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:7-22. 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.