IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i2d10.1007_s40258-017-0310-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy J. Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Richard Brooks

    (EuroQol Group)

Abstract

Over the period 1987–1991 an inter-disciplinary five-country group developed the EuroQol instrument, a five-dimensional three-level generic measure subsequently termed the ‘EQ-5D’. It was designed to measure and value health status. The salient features of its development and its consolidation and expansion are discussed. Initial expansion came, in particular, in the form of new language versions. Their development raised translation and semantic issues, experience with which helped feed into the design of two further instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the youth version EQ-5D-Y. The expanded usage across clinical programmes, disease and condition areas, population surveys, patient-reported outcomes, and value sets is outlined. Valuation has been of continued relevance for the Group as this has allowed its instruments to be utilised as part of the economic appraisal of health programmes and their incorporation into health technology assessments. The future of the Group is considered in the context of: (1) its scientific strategy, (2) changes in the external environment affecting the demand for EQ-5D, and (3) a variety of issues it is facing in the context of the design of the instrument, its use in health technology assessment, and potential new uses for EQ-5D outside of clinical trials and technology appraisal.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy J. Devlin & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0310-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5?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. Feng, Y. & Parkin, D. & Devlin, N., 2012. "Assessing the Performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs Programme," Research Papers 000165, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Jon Sussex & Adrian Towse & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "Operationalizing Value-Based Pricing of Medicines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 1-10, January.
    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. Marta Encheva & Slaveyko Djambazov & Toni Vekov & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "EQ-5D-5L Bulgarian population norms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1169-1178, November.
    2. Wenjing Zhou & Anle Shen & Zhihao Yang & Pei Wang & Bin Wu & Michael Herdman & Nan Luo, 2021. "Patient-caregiver agreement and test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(7), pages 1103-1113, September.
    3. Márta Péntek & Ottó Hajdu & Fanni Rencz & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Valentin Brodszky & Petra Baji & Zsombor Zrubka & Klára Major & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Subjective expectations regarding ageing: a cross-sectional online population survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 17-30, June.
    4. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    5. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    6. Héctor Pifarré i Arolas & Christian Dudel, 2019. "An Ordinal Measure of Population Health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 1219-1243, June.
    7. Stephen Poteet & Benjamin M. Craig, 2021. "QALYs for COVID-19: A Comparison of US EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 339-345, May.
    8. Towse, A. & Garau, M., 2018. "Appraising Ultra-Orphan Drugs: Is Cost-Per-QALY Appropriate? A Review of the Evidence," Consulting Reports 001978, Office of Health Economics.
    9. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    10. David G. T. Whitehurst & Nicholas R. Latimer & Aura Kagan & Rebecca Palmer & Nina Simmons-Mackie & J. Charles Victor & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Developing Accessible, Pictorial Versions of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Suitable for Economic Evaluation: A Report of Preliminary Studies Conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 225-231, September.
    11. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    12. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    13. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 0. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    14. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    15. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(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. Martina Garau & Grace Hampson & Nancy Devlin & Nicola Amedeo Mazzanti & Antonio Profico, 2018. "Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders’ Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 153-163, June.
    2. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    3. Volman, Lucas, 2018. "The TRIPS Article 31 Tug of War Developing Country Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents and Developed Country Retaliation," LawArXiv 6cxaj, Center for Open Science.
    4. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski, 2016. "Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: The Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 29-40, February.
    5. Dukhanin, Vadim & Searle, Alexandra & Zwerling, Alice & Dowdy, David W. & Taylor, Holly A. & Merritt, Maria W., 2018. "Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 27-35.
    6. Casanova-Juanes, Julieta & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & Espín-Balbino, Jaime, 2018. "Competition in the off-patent medicine market in Spain: The national reference pricing system versus the regional system of tendering for outpatient prescription medicines in Andalusia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1310-1315.
    7. Sussex, J. & Rollet, P. & Garau, M. & Schmitt, C. & Kent, A. & Hutchings, A., 2013. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Value Orphan Medicines," Research Papers 000114, Office of Health Economics.
    8. Kevin Marsh & Tereza Lanitis & David Neasham & Panagiotis Orfanos & Jaime Caro, 2014. "Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 345-365, April.
    9. Rutger P. Daems PhD & Edith L. Maes DBA, 2013. "Pharmaceutical Portfolio Management: Global Disease Burden and Corporate Performance Metrics," Working Papers 2013/07, Maastricht School of Management.
    10. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0310-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.