Preference-Based Assessment Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5 D

Background: In 2009, a new version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) was introduced with five rather than three answer levels per dimension. This instrument is known as the EQ-5D5L. To make the EQ-5D-5L suitable for use in economic evaluations, societal values need to be attached to all 3125 health states. Objectives: To derive a Dutch tariff for the EQ-5D-5L. Methods: Health state values were elicited during face-to-face interviews in a general population sample stratified for age, sex, and education, using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Data were modeled using ordinary least squares and tobit regression (for cTTO) and a multinomial conditional logit model (for DCE). Model performance was evaluated on the basis of internal consistency, parsimony, goodness of fit, handling of left-censored values, and theoretical considerations. Results: A representative sample (N 1⁄4 1003) of the Dutch population participated in the valuation study. Data of 979 and 992 respondents were included in ee front matter Copyright & 2016, International S r Inc. This is an open access article under the CC ons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1016/j.jval.2016.01.003 st: M. Versteegh and E. Stolk are members of the h@imta.eur.nl. pondence to: Matthijs Versteegh, Institute for M m, the Netherlands. the analysis of the cTTO and the DCE, respectively. The cTTO data were left-censored at 1. The tobit model was considered the preferred model for the tariff on the basis of its handling of the censored nature of the data, which was confirmed through comparison with the DCE data. The predicted values for the EQ-5D-5L ranged from 0.446 to 1. Conclusions: This study established a Dutch tariff for the EQ-5D-5L on the basis of cTTO. The values represent the preferences of the Dutch population. The tariff can be used to estimate the impact of health care interventions on quality of life, for example, in context of economic evaluations.

[1]  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.

[2]  A Simon Pickard,et al.  Evaluating Equivalency Between Response Systems: Application of the Rasch Model to a 3-Level and 5-Level EQ-5D , 2007, Medical care.

[3]  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.

[4]  M. Versteegh,et al.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[5]  A Simon Pickard,et al.  Psychometric Comparison of the Standard EQ-5D to a 5 Level Version in Cancer Patients , 2007, Medical care.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  Mark Oppe,et al.  One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[9]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods , 2008, Quality of Life Research.

[10]  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.

[11]  C. Gudex,et al.  Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  N. Devlin,et al.  Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[13]  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.

[14]  Julie Ratcliffe,et al.  Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  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.

[16]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  Murtuza Bharmal,et al.  Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. , 2006, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

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

[19]  J. Brazier,et al.  A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. , 2004, Health economics.

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

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

[22]  Nan Luo,et al.  The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

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

[24]  P. Dolan.  Modelling valuations for health states , 1997 .

[25]  M. Versteegh,et al.  Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.