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

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.

[1]  Matthias Bischof,et al.  A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate , 2016, CNS Drugs.

[2]  Stuart Peacock,et al.  Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (Aqol) Mark 2 Instrument , 2004 .

[3]  Brendan Mulhern,et al.  Estimating a Dutch Value Set for the Pediatric Preference-Based CHU9D Using a Discrete Choice Experiment with Duration. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

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

[6]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[7]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[8]  Carol Mansfield,et al.  Patient Preferences for Attributes of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Medications in Germany and Spain: An Online Discrete-Choice Experiment Survey , 2017, Diabetes Therapy.

[9]  I. Kaitila,et al.  Quality of life in early adolescence: A sixteendimensional health-related measure (16D) , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[10]  Koonal Shah,et al.  Anchoring Latent Scale Values for the EQ-5D-Y at 0 = Dead , 2020 .

[11]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[12]  Katherine Stevens,et al.  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 , 2011, Applied health economics and health policy.

[13]  P. Veugelers,et al.  Assessment of children’s own health status using visual analogue scale and descriptive system of the EQ-5D-Y: linkage between two systems , 2014, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Valuation of EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Health States: The Impact of Wording and Perspective. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  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.

[16]  Wolfgang Greiner,et al.  Valuation of Child Health-Related Quality of Life in the United States. , 2016, Health economics.

[17]  Koonal Shah,et al.  A note on the relationship between age and health-related quality of life assessment , 2018, Quality of Life Research.

[18]  Elly Stolk,et al.  Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[19]  Paul Kind,et al.  Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y , 2015, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  J. Coast,et al.  Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Lack Quality in Pediatric Care: A Critical Review of Published Cost-Utility Studies in Child Health , 2005, Pediatrics.

[21]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[22]  Michael Herdman,et al.  Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  Brendan J Mulhern,et al.  A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions , 2018, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[24]  Bing Wang,et al.  Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment , 2017, PloS one.

[25]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[26]  I. Kaitila,et al.  Quality of life in pre-adolescence: A 17-dimensional health-related measure (17D) , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

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

[28]  Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi,et al.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ? , 2021, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  John Brazier,et al.  Development of the multi-attribute Adolescent Health Utility Measure (AHUM) , 2012, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[30]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[31]  David Parkin,et al.  Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. , 2002, Health economics.

[32]  G. C. Morrison,et al.  Improving the Sensitivity of the Time Trade-Off Method: Results of an Experiment Using Chained TTO Questions , 2002, Health care management science.

[33]  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.

[34]  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.

[35]  Donna Rowen,et al.  Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going? , 2020, PharmacoEconomics.

[36]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.