IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p186-194.html

The Effect of Health State Selection on the Valuation of EQ-5D

Author

Listed:
  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang
  • Paul Kind

Abstract

Background. Many aspects of valuation study designs are poorly understood, and the size and composition of health states used in valuation studies vary widely. Our aims were to investigate the impact of the selection of a subset of EQ-5D health states in generating a set of visual analog scale (VAS)–based values. Our aims were to investigate the optimal number of health states, the sample size required per health state, and which combinations of health states are required to establish a EQ-5D VAS value set. Methods. Data were drawn from a United Kingdom (UK) general population postal survey in which all health states defined by EQ-5D were evaluated using VAS. We used a simulation approach to address each question, and the performance of each estimation model was assessed by the average value of the mean absolute errors. Results. Despite the constraint of the small sample size in the study dataset, the results suggest that the optimal number of states for a valuation study is 32, 100 observations per health state were sufficient, and multiple subsets of health states were feasible. Conclusions. Selecting health states not included in the “Measurement and Valuation of Health†dataset in valuation studies is quite specifically encouraged. However, it remains prudent to ensure that the selection of health states covers as wide a range of severity as possible. Setting the number of observations per health state to 150 might allow for correction of any errors in data collection or processing. The extent to which the results of this study based on VAS valuation data can be safely generalized to the design of time tradeoff valuation studies remains an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:186-194
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10371231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10371231
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10371231?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. 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.
    2. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    3. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    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. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kuhan Perampaladas & Kathryn Gaebel & Brett Doble & Feng Xie, 2015. "Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 847-855, November.
    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).

    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. 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.
    2. J. Busschbach & B. Wolffenbuttel & L. Annemans & W. Meerding & M. Kołtowska-Häggström, 2011. "Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 243-252, June.
    3. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2013. "How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1105-1119, December.
    4. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    5. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    6. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Annemieke Leunis & Jolanda J. Luime & Mike Boggild & Carin A. Uyl-de Groot & Elly A. Stolk, 2012. "Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 554-568, July.
    9. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    10. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    11. Giancarlo Romano G, 2013. "Acerca de la condición normativa de la teoría de la decisión racional," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    12. 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).
    13. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    14. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Jeff Round & Annie Hawton, 2017. "Statistical Alchemy: Conceptual Validity and Mapping to Generate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 233-239, December.
    16. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    17. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    18. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    19. Abeer Rabayah & Bram Roudijk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Fanni Rencz & Saad Jaddoua & Uwe Siebert, 2025. "Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Jordan," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(3), pages 487-501, April.
    20. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:186-194. 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: 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.