Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach

Background: The EQ-5D instrument is the most widely used preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in cost-effectiveness analysis of health care technologies. Recently, a version called EQ-5D-5L with 5 levels on each dimension was developed. This manuscript explores the performance of a hybrid approach for the modeling of EQ-5D-5L valuation data. Methods: Two elicitation techniques, the composite time trade-off, and discrete choice experiments, were applied to a sample of the Spanish population (n=1000) using a computer-based questionnaire. The sampling process consisted of 2 stages: stratified sampling of geographic area, followed by systematic sampling in each area. A hybrid regression model combining composite time trade-off and discrete choice data was used to estimate the potential value sets using main effects as starting point. The comparison between the models was performed using the criteria of logical consistency, goodness of fit, and parsimony. Results: Twenty-seven participants from the 1000 were removed following the exclusion criteria. The best-fitted model included 2 significant interaction terms but resulted in marginal improvements in model fit compared to the main effects model. We therefore selected the model results with main effects as a potential value set for this methodological study, based on the parsimony criteria. The results showed that the main effects hybrid model was consistent, with a range of utility values between 1 and −0.224. Conclusion: This paper shows the feasibility of using a hybrid approach to estimate a value set for EQ-5D-5L valuation data.

[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]  S. Hawkins,et al.  Information Processing Strategies in Riskless Preference Reversals: The Prominence Effect , 1994 .

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

[4]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[5]  Mark Oppe,et al.  From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

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

[7]  J. L. Pinto,et al.  Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs , 2002 .

[8]  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.

[9]  M. Cowie National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. , 2015, European heart journal.

[10]  R F Nease,et al.  Choice-Matching Preference Reversals in Health Outcome Assessments , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[12]  Florian Nadel,et al.  Eq 5d Value Sets Inventory Comparative Review And User Guide , 2016 .

[13]  I. Simonson,et al.  Price–Quality Trade-Offs in Choice Versus Matching: New Insights Into the Prominence Effect , 1998 .

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

[15]  Joshua A Salomon,et al.  Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data , 2003, Population health metrics.

[16]  Angela Robinson,et al.  Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. , 2006, Health economics.

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

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

[19]  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.

[20]  M. Bliemer,et al.  Approximation of bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs , 2008 .

[21]  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.

[22]  Yan Zhang,et al.  The Prominence Effect in Shanghai Apartment Prices , 2008 .

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

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

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[28]  A. Kasuya EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. , 1990, Health policy.

[29]  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.

[30]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[31]  P. Kind,et al.  A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  Adam Oliver,et al.  Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. , 2006, Journal of health economics.