Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets.

An interview study with 101 members of public compared the protocols used in valuation studies for EQ-5D (using ranking, visual analogue scale, and time trade-off), and SF-6D (using ranking and standard gamble). Respondents were given one of the two protocols and asked to value four states each from EQ-5D and SF-6D. VAS scores suggest the narrower range of SF-6D values is partly attributable to the descriptive system; TTO values for milder states were higher than SG values; and the mean value for EQ-5D pits using TTO and SF-6D pits using SG were closer than across the two original valuation studies.

[1]  P. Dolan,et al.  Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. , 1996, Journal of health economics.

[2]  John Brazier,et al.  A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. , 2003, Health economics.

[3]  R M Kaplan,et al.  A general health policy model: update and applications. , 1988, Health services research.

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

[5]  P. Dolan,et al.  Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. , 2003, Health economics.

[7]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[8]  J. Brazier,et al.  A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. , 1999, Health economics.

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

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

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

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