IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i7d10.1007_s40273-020-00909-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L

Author

Listed:
  • Juan M. Ramos-Goñi

    () (Axentiva Solutions
    EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Mark Oppe

    (Axentiva Solutions
    EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Elly Stolk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Koonal Shah

    (Office of Health Economics
    PHMR)

  • Simone Kreimeier

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Oliver Rivero-Arias

    (University of Oxford)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics
    University of Melbourne)

Abstract

The EQ-5D-Y-3L is a generic, health-related, quality-of-life instrument for use in younger populations. Some methodological studies have explored the valuation of children’s EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. There are currently no published value sets available for the EQ-5D-Y-3L that are appropriate for use in a cost-utility analysis. The aim of this article was to describe the development of the valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L instrument. There were several research questions that needed to be answered to develop a valuation protocol for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. Most important of these were: (1) Do we need to obtain separate values for the EQ-5D-Y-3L, or can we use the ones from the EQ-5D-3L? (2) Whose values should we elicit: children or adults? (3) Which valuation methods should be used to obtain values for child’s health states that are anchored in Full health = 1 and Dead = 0? The EuroQol Research Foundation has pursued a research programme to provide insight into these questions. In this article, we summarized the results of the research programme concluding with the description of the features of the EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation protocol. The tasks included in the protocol for valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states are discrete choice experiments for obtaining the relative importance of dimensions/levels and composite time-trade-off for anchoring the discrete choice experiment values on 1 = Full Health and 0 = Dead. This protocol is now available for use by research teams to generate EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets for their countries allowing the implementation of a cost-utility analysis for younger populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00909-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

    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. Angela Robinson & David Parkin, 2002. "Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 649-651, October.
    2. Benjamin M. Craig & Wolfgang Greiner & Derek S. Brown & Bryce B. Reeve, 2016. "Valuation of Child Health‐Related Quality of Life in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 768-777, June.
    3. Jeff Richardson & Neil Atherton Day & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2004. "Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 62-88, March.
    4. Katherine Stevens, 2011. "Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 157-169, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 29th June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-29 11:00:06

    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. repec:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00994-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    4. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis. Authors' reply," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 653-654, October.
    5. Cubi-Molla, P. & Shah, K.K & Garside, J. & Herdman, M. & Devlin, N., 2017. "Age and Utilities: Issues for HTA," Research Papers 001830, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Ayse Kuspinar & Nancy Mayo, 2014. "A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 759-773, August.
    7. Sharda, Elizabeth A. & Sutherby, Carolyn G. & Cavanaugh, Daniel L. & Hughes, Anne K. & Woodward, Amanda T., 2019. "Parenting stress, well-being, and social support among kinship caregivers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-80.
    8. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    9. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    10. Catherine Fantaguzzi & Elizabeth Allen & Alec Miners & Deborah Christie & Charles Opondo & Zia Sadique & Adam Fletcher & Richard Grieve & Chris Bonell & Russell M. Viner & Rosa Legood, 2018. "Health-related quality of life associated with bullying and aggression: a cross-sectional study in English secondary schools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 641-651, June.
    11. Katherine J. Stevens, 2016. "How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 9(1), pages 5-13, February.
    12. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    13. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    14. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    15. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    16. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    17. Jeff Round, 2018. "Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 641-643, June.
    18. Karin Dam Petersen & Gang Chen & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 29-37, February.
    19. Janneke Grutters & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs & Johan Severens & Math Candel & James Stahl & Dirk Ruysscher & Albert Boer & Bram Ramaekers & Manuela Joore, 2013. "Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 111-123, February.
    20. Jeff Richardson & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2009. "Do quality-adjusted life years take account of lost income? Evidence from an Australian survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 103-109, February.
    21. Sesil Lim & Marcel F. Jonker & Mark Oppe & Bas Donkers & Elly Stolk, 2018. "Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1377-1389, November.

    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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00909-3. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). 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 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.

    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.