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.

BACKGROUND Valuations of health states were affected by the wording of the two instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) and by the perspective taken (child or adult). OBJECTIVES There is a growing demand for value sets for the EQ-5D-Y (EQ-5D instrument for younger populations). Given the similarities between EQ-5D-Y and EQ-5D-3L, we investigated whether valuations of health states were affected by the differences in wording between the two instruments and by the perspective taken in the valuation exercise (child or adult). STUDY DESIGN Respondents were randomly assigned to EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y (instrument) and further into two groups that either valued health states for an adult or for a 10-year-old child (perspective). The valuation tasks were composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and discrete choice experiments (DCE), including comparisons with death (DCE + death). Members of the adult general population in four countries (Germany, Netherlands, Spain, England) participated in computer-assisted personal interviews. METHODS Two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc tests were used to compare C-TTO responses and chi-square tests were conducted to compare DCE + death valuations. RESULTS A significant interaction effect between instrument and perspective for C-TTO responses was found. Significant differences by perspective (adult and child) occurred only for the EQ-5D-3L. Significant differences in values between instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) occurred only for the adult perspective. Both significant results were confirmed by the DCE + death results. When comparing EQ-5D-3L for adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y for child perspective, values were also significantly different. CONCLUSIONS The results identified an interaction effect between wording of the instrument and perspective on elicited values, suggesting that current EQ-5D-3L value sets should not be employed to assign values to EQ-5D-Y health states.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  Sarah A. Edwards,et al.  Characteristics and quality of pediatric cost-utility analyses , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  A. Tsuchiya,et al.  Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[5]  R. Sieracki,et al.  Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Direct Elicitation of Children’s Preferences for Health States , 2017, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  R. Edwards,et al.  EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Quality Control Process for EQ-5D-5L Valuation Studies. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  John Brazier,et al.  Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health-State Values for the Child Health Utility-9D Using Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling. , 2016, Health economics.

[9]  M. Herdman,et al.  Health-related quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: a systematic review of generic and disease-specific instruments. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  John Brazier,et al.  Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[11]  K. Eames,et al.  Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2015, PloS one.

[12]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[13]  M. Eckman,et al.  Health values of adolescents with cystic fibrosis. , 2003, The Journal of pediatrics.

[14]  P. Lewis,et al.  Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can't treat both? , 1989, Journal of medical ethics.

[15]  R. Darlington,et al.  Factor Analysis , 2008 .

[16]  M. Gold.  Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[17]  W. Furlong,et al.  Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. , 1999, JAMA.

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

[19]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[20]  Julie Ratcliffe,et al.  A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations , 2015, PharmacoEconomics.

[21]  J. Brazier,et al.  Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample , 2011, Applied health economics and health policy.

[22]  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.

[23]  F. D. de Charro,et al.  The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach. , 1993, Social science & medicine.

[24]  P. Dolan,et al.  An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. , 2003, Health economics.

[25]  N. Ikegami,et al.  Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. , 2002, Health economics.

[26]  L. Aday,et al.  Measuring health state preferences for hemophilia: development of a disease‐specific utility instrument , 2005, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[27]  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.