A Value Set for the EQ-5D Based on Experienced Health States

BackgroundDecision makers responsible for allocation of healthcare resources may require that health states are valued by the population for whom they are making decisions. To achieve this, health-state descriptions can be combined with a value set that reflects the valuations of the target population. In the decision-utility approach, such a value set is at least partly based on wants and expectations regarding given health states. This may reflect aspects different from the health state experienced and valued by a respondent.ObjectivesTo derive a value set that is completely based on experienced health states, emphasising the patient’s perspective, and test its predictive performance in comparison with established approaches.MethodsProblem descriptions and rating scale valuations of the EQ-5D were drawn from two representative German population surveys in 2006 and 2007. Two models based on given health states but differing in valuation method (1a, b) were analysed, along with three models based on experienced health states: (2) ordinary least squares regression; (3) scale-transformed regression; and (4) a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and constraint parameter estimation. The models were compared with respect to issues in specification, and accuracy in predicting the actual valuations of experienced health states in a new data set, using correlation, mean error and ranking measures for the latter. In addition, the impact of standardizing experience-based index models for age and sex of the subjects was investigated.ResultsModels 1 (a, b), 2 and 3 partly led to plausible and comparable parameter estimates, but also led to problems of insignificance and inconsistencies in some of the estimates. Model 4 achieved consistency and featured partly equivalent and partly better predictive accuracy. Using this model, mean valuations of health states were much better predicted by the experience-based approach than by the decision-utility approach, especially for health states that frequently (>10) occurred in the population sample. Standardizing the experience-based index models for age and sex further improved predictive accuracy and strengthened the position of model 4.ConclusionsA value set for the EQ-5D can be plausibly estimated from experience-based valuations. The approach offers an alternative to decision makers who prefer experience-based valuation over decision utilities in the measurement of health outcome. Although usefulness in population samples was shown, use in a clinical context will first require indication-specific tests. Current limitations include use in a general population only, and a restricted range of health states covered.

[1]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[2]  D. Feeny,et al.  Do They Have a Role in the Measurement of Preferences for Health States , 2001 .

[3]  P. Dolan,et al.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. , 1996, Health economics.

[4]  W. Greiner,et al.  Die deutsche Version des EuroQol-Fragebogens , 1998, Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health.

[5]  R. Leidl,et al.  [Health status of adults in Germany: results from a representative survey using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)]. , 2010, Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)).

[6]  Josep Maria Haro,et al.  Comparison of Population Health Status in Six European Countries: Results of a Representative Survey Using the EQ-5D Questionnaire , 2009, Medical care.

[7]  A. Brennan,et al.  Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? , 2005, Applied health economics and health policy.

[8]  J. Brazier,et al.  A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. , 2009, Health economics.

[9]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Interpretations of Utility and Their Implications for the Valuation of Health , 2008 .

[10]  Anirban Basu,et al.  A linear index for predicting joint health-states utilities from single health-states utilities. , 2009, Health economics.

[11]  A. Mielck,et al.  Gesundheitszustand bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung mit dem EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) , 2010 .

[12]  D. Street,et al.  International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  Peep F M Stalmeier,et al.  Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  H. Hahmann,et al.  Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation , 2005, Heart.

[15]  Frank de Charro,et al.  The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective , 2003, Springer Netherlands.

[16]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Health Utilities Using the EQ-5D in Studies of Cancer , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[17]  M. Zeegers,et al.  A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  W. Greiner A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set , 2003 .

[19]  R. Leidl Preferences, quality of life and public health. , 2009, European journal of public health.

[20]  David Parkin,et al.  Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? , 2006, Health economics.

[21]  G Loomes,et al.  Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  A. Bagust,et al.  Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. , 2005, Health economics.

[23]  M. Weinstein,et al.  QALYs: the basics. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[24]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  Jeffrey A. Johnson,et al.  Relative Efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 Index Scores in Measuring Health Burden of Chronic Medical Conditions in a Population Health Survey in the United States , 2009, Medical care.

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

[27]  H. König,et al.  Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ‐5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany , 2010, Inflammatory bowel diseases.

[28]  R. de Graaf,et al.  Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  W. Greiner,et al.  Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[30]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: a comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system. , 2007, Journal of health economics.