IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i3p321-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of EQ-5D Index Scores Derived from the US and UK Population-Based Scoring Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Luo

    (Centre for Health Services Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, medln@nus.edu.sg)

  • Jeffrey A. Johnson

    (Institute of Health Economics & University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)

  • James W. Shaw

    (Department of Pharmacy Administration and Center for Pharmacoeconomics, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Illinois)

  • Stephen Joel Coons

    (College of Pharmacy and College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona)

Abstract

The authors recently introduced a new preference-based scoring function for the EQ-5D (D1 model) based on time tradeoff valuations from the general adult US population. In this study, they compared the EQ-5D index scores derived from the US (D1) algorithm to the more familiar UK (N3) algorithm. They compared preference-based EQ-5D index scores for all possible EQ-5D health states and differences in EQ-5D index scores between pairs of EQ-5D health states predicted by the D1 and N3 models. The responsiveness of D1- and N3-predicted EQ-5D index scores was assessed using simulated transitions between EQ-5D health states. The mean (SD) EQ-5D index scores for all 243 health states predicted by the D1 and N3 models were 0.37 (0.23) and 0.14 (0.31), respectively. The mean (SD) absolute difference in EQ-5D index scores for all 29,403 pairs of health states was 0.25 (0.19) and 0.35 (0.27), according to the D1 and N3 models, respectively. The D1 and N3 models were consistent in predicting gains/losses for 27,592 (94%) transitions between EQ-5D health state pairs; Cohen effect size, calculated using these 27,592 consistent transitions, was 1.58 and 1.59 for the D1 and N3 models, respectively. Based on these simulation results, it appears that the D1 model would lead to smaller gains in quality-adjusted life years than the N3 model; however, their responsiveness appears to be similar. Empirical studies are needed to examine whether these 2 EQ-5D scoring functions would lead to different conclusions in cost-utility analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Luo & Jeffrey A. Johnson & James W. Shaw & Stephen Joel Coons, 2007. "A Comparison of EQ-5D Index Scores Derived from the US and UK Population-Based Scoring Functions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 321-326, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:321-326
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07300603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07300603
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07300603?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Ralph Crott & Andrew Briggs, 2010. "Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(4), pages 427-434, August.
    3. Raymond Oppong & Billingsley Kaambwa & Jacqueline Nuttall & Kerenza Hood & Richard Smith & Joanna Coast, 2013. "The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Liv Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar 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.
    6. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:321-326. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.