IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/grafun/001821.html

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and the English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Mulhern
  • Yan Feng
  • Koonal Shah
  • Bas Janssen
  • Mike Herdman
  • Ben van Hout
  • Nancy Devlin

Abstract

Three EQ-5D value sets (the EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to systematically assess the implications of these differences for the value generated. The… Three EQ-5D value sets (the EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to systematically assess the implications of these differences for the value generated. The aim of this paper is to compare the characteristics of the three value sets.…

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Bas Janssen & Mike Herdman & Ben van Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and the English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," Grant-Funded Research 001821, Office of Health Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ohe:grafun:001821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/comparing-uk-eq-5d-3l-and-english-eq-5d-5l-value-sets/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Research-Paper-17-2-210317.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    2. Bas Janssen & Mark Oppe & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 5-13, July.
    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. SeungJin Bae & SooOk Lee & Eun Bae & Sunmee Jang, 2013. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 257-267, April.
    2. Ákos Szabó & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz, 2025. "Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 627-639, June.
    3. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    5. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    6. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    7. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Marco DiBonaventura & Lance Richard & Maya Kumar & Anna Forsythe & Natalia M Flores & Margaret Moline, 2015. "The Association between Insomnia and Insomnia Treatment Side Effects on Health Status, Work Productivity, and Healthcare Resource Use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Efthymiadou, Olina & Mossman, Jean & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 159-165.
    11. C. Rubio-Terrés & J. Soria & P. Morange & J. Souto & P. Suchon & J. Mateo & N. Saut & D. Rubio-Rodríguez & J. Sala & A. Gracia & S. Pich & E. Salas, 2015. "Economic Analysis of Thrombo inCode, a Clinical–Genetic Function for Assessing the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 233-242, April.
    12. Marieke Krol & Elly Stolk & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "Predicting productivity based on EQ-5D: an explorative study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(5), pages 465-475, June.
    13. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Matthew Franklin & Clara Mukuria & Brendan Mulhern & Irwin Tran & John Brazier & Stuart Watson, 2019. "Measuring the Burden of Schizophrenia Using Clinician and Patient-Reported Measures: An Exploratory Analysis of Construct Validity," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 405-417, August.
    15. Qingqing Chai & Zhihao Yang & Xiaoyan Liu & Di An & Jiangyang Du & Xiumei Ma & Kim Rand & Bin Wu & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients’ perspective: a feasibility study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 915-924, August.
    16. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    17. Charles F. Manski & John Mullahy, 2025. "Utilitarian or Quantile-Welfare Evaluation of Social Welfare? With Application to Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Papers 2509.05529, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    18. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    19. Nalin Payakachat & Mir Ali & J. Tilford, 2015. "Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1137-1154, November.
    20. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:grafun:001821. 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: Publications Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Publications Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.