IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v265y2020ics0277953620305426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the composite dimensions of the EQ-5D: An experimental approach

Author

Listed:
  • McDonald, Rebecca
  • Mullett, Timothy L.
  • Tsuchiya, Aki

Abstract

The EQ-5D(-5L) includes two composite dimensions: “Pain or Discomfort” (P/D) and “Anxiety or Depression” (A/D), which involves an inherent ambiguity. Little is known about how these composite dimensions are interpreted across contexts where (i) individuals self-report their own health; and (ii) individuals value stylised health states. We detail the nature of the ambiguity and present experimental evidence from two large online surveys (n = 1007 and n = 1415). In one survey, individuals reported both their current health and their health at the time they felt the worst because of their health. In the other, they valued stylised EQ-5D states using Discrete Choice Experiments with duration as an attribute. In both surveys, participants were randomised into treatments in which the presentation of one of the composite dimensions was altered, or a control. Our results suggest (1) In self-report, use of the composite dimensions differs across the dimensions, with P/D used mainly to report Pain, but A/D used mainly to mean the more severe component of Anxiety and Depression. (2) In valuation, Pain was perceived to be worse than Discomfort at the same level, and Depression was perceived to be worse than Anxiety at the same level. (3) In valuation, the composite dimension P/D was interpreted to mean Pain, whilst the composite dimension A/D was interpreted to lie between Anxiety and Depression. We conclude that care must be taken when interpreting responses to existing health (or wellbeing) descriptive systems that rely on composite dimensions, and that caution should be applied when designing new ones.

Suggested Citation

  • McDonald, Rebecca & Mullett, Timothy L. & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2020. "Understanding the composite dimensions of the EQ-5D: An experimental approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:265:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305426
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305426
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113323?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. 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.
    2. Aki Tsuchiya & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 380-392, May.
    3. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    4. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Koonal Shah & Nick Bansback & Louise Longworth & Rosalie Viney, 2018. "How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 306-318, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, 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. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    6. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    7. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Luciana Scalone & Peep Stalmeier & Silvano Milani & Paul Krabbe, 2015. "Values for health states with different life durations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 917-925, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Michal Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki & Maciej Niewada, 2016. "(Belief in) life after death impacts the utility of life before it - a difference in preferences or an artefact?," KAE Working Papers 2016-007, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Webb, Edward J.D. & Hess, Stephane, 2021. "Joint modelling of choice and rating data: Theory and examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    14. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    15. Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Peter Arrow & Sameera Senanayake & Hannah Carter & David Brain & Richard Norman & Utsana Tonmukayawul & Lisa Jamieson & Sanjeewa Kularatna, 2023. "Developing an Australian utility value set for the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale-4D (ECOHIS-4D) using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1285-1296, November.
    16. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    17. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    18. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    19. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    20. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.

    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:eee:socmed:v:265:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305426. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.