An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences

AbstractPurposeTo derive a value set from Uruguayan general population using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and report population norms. MethodsGeneral population individuals were randomly assigned to value 10 health states using composite time trade off and 7 pairs of health states through discrete choice experiments. A stratified sampling with quotas by location, gender, age and socio-economic status was used to respect the Uruguayan population structure. Trained interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews. The EuroQol valuation technology was used to administer the protocol as well as to collect the data. OLS and maximum likelihood robust regression models with or without interactions were tested. ResultsWe included 794 respondents between 20 and 83 years. Their characteristics were broadly similar to the Uruguayan population. The main effects robust model was chosen to derive social values. Values ranged from −0.264 to 1. States with a misery index = 6 had a mean predicted value of 0.965. When comparing the Uruguayan population with the Argentinian EQ-5D-5L crosswalk value set, the prediction for states which differed from full health only in having one of the dimensions at level 2 were about 0.05 higher in Uruguay. The mean index value, using the selected Uruguayan EQ-5D-5L value set, for the general population in Uruguay was 0.895. In general, older people had worse values and males had slightly better values than females.ConclusionWe derived the EQ-5D-5L Uruguayan value set, the first in Latin America. These results will help inform decision-making using economic evaluations for resource allocation decisions.

[1]  N. Devlin,et al.  Comprar EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide | Szende, Agota | 9781402055102 | Springer , 2007 .

[2]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach , 2014, Medical care.

[3]  V. Irazola,et al.  Argentine valuation of the EQ-5D health states. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  A. Pickard,et al.  Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke , 2014, Quality of Life Research.

[5]  Mark Oppe,et al.  A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  Michael Herdman,et al.  Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[7]  D. Marshall,et al.  Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement , 2015, Quality of Life Research.

[8]  Mark Oppe,et al.  EQ-5D value sets : inventory, comparative review, and user guide , 2007 .

[9]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) , 2011, Quality of Life Research.

[10]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[11]  P. Kind,et al.  Social valuation of EQ-5D health states: the Chilean case. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[12]  Frederick R. Forst,et al.  On robust estimation of the location parameter , 1980 .

[13]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[14]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Multinational Evidence of the Applicability and Robustness of Discrete Choice Modeling for Deriving EQ-5D-5L Health-State Values , 2014, Medical care.

[15]  J. Cabasés,et al.  Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D , 2013 .

[16]  M. Thavorncharoensap,et al.  Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients , 2015, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[17]  Paul F. M. Krabbe,et al.  The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[18]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[19]  L. Hamilton How Robust is Robust Regression , 1992 .

[20]  L. Lamers The Transformation of Utilities for Health States Worse Than Death: Consequences for the Estimation of EQ-5D Value Sets , 2007, Medical care.

[21]  Mark Oppe,et al.  EQ-5D Value Sets , 2007 .

[22]  Kevin A. Rader,et al.  The EQ-5D-5L Improves on the EQ-5D-3L for Health-related Quality-of-life Assessment in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[23]  T. Kohlmann,et al.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[24]  Dan Greenberg,et al.  Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. , 2006, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  P. Kind,et al.  Societal Preferences for EQ-5D Health States from a Brazilian Population Survey. , 2013, Value in health regional issues.

[26]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Lead versus lag time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? , 2013 .

[27]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[28]  A. Tsuchiya,et al.  Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.