IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i4d10.1007_s40258-025-00954-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Head-On Comparison of EQ-VT- and Crosswalk-Based EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Bailey

    (The University of the West Indies
    The University of the West Indies)

  • Bram Roudijk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation
    Erasmus University Medical Center)

Abstract

Background No systematic country-level comparison has been undertaken between crosswalk- and EQ-VT-derived EQ-5D-5L value sets. Crosswalk values can differ from EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets owing to valuation protocols, changes in societal preferences over time, and a change in the label of the highest level on mobility in moving from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L. This study aimed to compare the five-level (5L) crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets to explore differences between them at the country level. Methods From the countries with both time trade-off (TTO)- or discrete choice experiment (DCE) + TTO-based EQ-5D-3L value sets and EQ-VT-based EQ-5D-5L value sets, 19 pairs of EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L sets were found. For each of these EQ-5D-3L value sets, 5L crosswalk sets were developed and compared with the corresponding national EQ-5D-5L valuation set using correlation analysis, ranges, values of specific states, Bland–Altman plots, and scatter plots. Three of the countries have EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L valuation data for the same set of respondents. These three cases were analyzed separately, as they provide a “true” test of the differences between the two value sets. Results Spearman correlation between the crosswalk and valuation sets ranged from 0.831 to 0.989, being below 0.9 in 11 pairs of value sets. The difference in the percentage of negative values ranged from +22.5 to −18.8%, and the difference in the ranges within each pair of value sets ranged from +42.7 to −18.4%. The average mean absolute difference of values (crosswalk versus EQ-VT) was 0.149. This was below 0.1 in only 5 of the 19 EQ-VT/crosswalk set pairs. For the states comprising one level 5 and four level 1s, no country preserved its ranking of importance of the five dimensions in moving from crosswalk to EQ-VT values. Most of the Bland–Altman plots and scatterplots revealed a pattern that placed states with the highest level on mobility as a separate band from other states. Discussion All of the criteria showed poor agreement between the crosswalk- and EQ-VT-based value sets. The differences in labels for the most extreme response option for the mobility dimension leads to substantial differences in values between these value sets. Conclusions Crosswalk and EQ-VT value sets should not be used interchangeably, except under circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to conduct a direct EQ-5D-5L valuation study.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Bailey & Bram Roudijk, 2025. "A Head-On Comparison of EQ-VT- and Crosswalk-Based EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 725-736, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00954-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00954-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00954-z
    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/s40258-025-00954-z?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya & John Brazier & Aslam Anis, 2012. "Canadian Valuation of EQ-5D Health States: Preliminary Value Set and Considerations for Future Valuation Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, February.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer & Peter Moffatt, 2015. "A Framework for Estimating Health State Utility Values within a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 341-350, April.
    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. Marian Sorin Paveliu & Elena Olariu & Raluca Caplescu & Yemi Oluboyede & Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Simona Ernu & Luke Vale, 2021. "Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Ruixuan Jiang & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee & Axel Mühlbacher & James Shaw & Surrey Walton & A. Simon Pickard, 2021. "Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 17-33, February.
    8. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    9. 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.
    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. 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.
    12. Xueyun Zeng & Mingjie Sui & Bo Liu & Hongbin Yang & Rui Liu & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Juan Xu & Erwei Zheng & Jinjin Yang & Chunyu Liu & Weidong Huang & Hongjuan Yu & Nan Luo, 2021. "Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in Six Commonly Diagnosed Cancers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 209-222, March.
    13. Feng Xie & Kathryn Gaebel & Kuhan Perampaladas & Brett Doble & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014. "Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 8-20, January.
    14. 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.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00954-z. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.