Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol.

A standardized 5-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) valuation protocol was first used in national studies in the period 2012 to 2013. A set of problems encountered in this initial wave of valuation studies led to the subsequent refinement of the valuation protocol. To clarify lessons learned and how the protocol was updated when moving from version 1.0 to the current version 2.1 and 2.0, this article will (1) present the challenges faced in EQ-5D-5L valuation since 2012 and how these were resolved and (2) describe in depth a set of new challenges that have become central in currently ongoing research on how EQ-5D-5L health states should be valued and modeled.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Microeconometrics Using Stata , 2009 .

[4]  Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi,et al.  Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong , 2017, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[5]  J. Brazier,et al.  A Comparison of Methods for Converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Learning and satisficing: an analysis of sequence effects in health valuation. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  Brendan Mulhern,et al.  New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data , 2017, Health economics.

[8]  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.

[9]  J. Brazier,et al.  Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  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.

[11]  Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi,et al.  An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  J. Brazier,et al.  Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. , 2012, Journal of health economics.

[13]  Richard Norman,et al.  The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores , 2016, PharmacoEconomics.

[14]  G Ardine de Wit,et al.  Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  Wolfgang Greiner,et al.  Valuation of Child Health-Related Quality of Life in the United States. , 2016, Health economics.

[16]  Michał Jakubczyk,et al.  Choice Defines Value: A Predictive Modeling Competition in Health Preference Research. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  Kristina Ludwig,et al.  German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[19]  J D Habbema,et al.  The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-Off. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  Susan Blackmore,et al.  The Power Of , 2000 .

[21]  Alan Shiell,et al.  Extrinsic Goals and Time Tradeoff , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  Mark Oppe,et al.  EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes , 2016, PharmacoEconomics.

[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]  Lee Bowman,et al.  Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? , 2014, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[25]  Nan Luo,et al.  The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[26]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale , 2008, Population health metrics.

[27]  Richard Norman,et al.  Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments--a QALY space model approach. , 2014, Health economics.

[28]  Jan Passchier,et al.  The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set , 2017, PharmacoEconomics.

[29]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Handling Data Quality Issues to Estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L Value Set Using a Hybrid Interval Regression Approach. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

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

[31]  Nan Luo,et al.  Estimating an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for China. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[32]  Brendan Mulhern,et al.  Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England , 2017, Health economics.

[33]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach , 2014, Medical care.

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

[35]  Lee Bowman,et al.  The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation , 2015, The European Journal of Health Economics.

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

[37]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

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

[39]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach. , 2011, Health economics.

[40]  N. Bansback,et al.  A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada , 2015, Medical care.

[41]  Benjamin M Craig,et al.  The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation , 2009, Population health metrics.