Interim Scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L Value Sets

Hout, Ben van; Janssen, Mathieu F.; Feng, You-Shan; Kohlmann, Thomas; Busschbach, Jan J. V.; Golicki, Dominik; Lloyd, Andrew; Scalone, L; Kind, Paul; Pickard, A. Simon

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008

Cited by 1,574 publications

(1,436 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,333

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each item has five response options ranging from no impairment to extreme impairment. An index score, where 0 is state equal to death and 1 is full health, was generated for all respondents using the interim U.K. scoring algorithm (Van Hout et al, 2012). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses

Al‐Janabi

2017

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryA core feature of the capability approach is that a person's capabilities (what they are able to do and be in their life) can differ from their functionings (what they actually do and are in their life). However, the degree to which capability and functioning differ in practice is unclear. This paper investigates this issue, focusing on capability and functioning differences (CFD) across different aspects of life and different individuals. In the study, the ICECAP‐A capability questionnaire was modified to measure both functionings and capabilities and was completed by U.K.‐based convenience sample of 943 people. Around one third of people reported CFD in at least one area of their life, most commonly in terms of their “achievement.” People were more likely to report CFD when they had a degree‐level education and when they had impaired health. An additional finding was that capability varied more with education whereas functioning varied more with health status. This finding needs further examination, but it suggests that the choice of evaluative space may influence how priorities are set for public spending.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses

Al‐Janabi

2017

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health index scores range from -0.281 to 1, with negative values representing health states worse than death, 0 representing the 'dead' state, and 1 the 'full health' state. Until the publication of this value set, studies published in the UK, and elsewhere, on the EQ-5D-5L were relying on a crosswalk health index score calculated using a mapping algorithm to the UK general population tariff developed for the EQ-5D-3L based on the TTO method alone from a sample of 3,395 members [56,57]. In this value set, herein referred to as "EQ-5D-3L UK crosswalk", health index scores range from -0.594 to 1, with 26.7% of health states being considered worse than death.…”

Section: Euroqol Five Dimensional and Five Level Questionnaire (Eq-5dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Health and Broader Well-Being Benefits in the Context of Opiate Dependence: The Psychometric Performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 Key points What is already known about the topic? Treatments for substance use disorders aim at improving health and, most importantly, broader wellbeing. Health-related measures of quality of life may not adequately capture the broader wellbeing benefits associated with such complex interventions. Comprehensive evidence on the validity and responsiveness of these measures in this context is lacking. When broader capability-wellbeing benefits are expected, NICE recommends the parallel use of an ICECAP measure but their measurement properties in this context are yet unknown. What does the paper add to existing knowledge? This is the first study exploring the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A measures in the context of drug addiction. The results indicate that the ICECAP-A is a promising measure for capturing both health and broader wellbeing benefits in this context. 3 ABSTRACT Background:Measuring outcomes in economic evaluations of social care interventions is

show abstract

“…However, a series of data cleaning procedures were performed to guarantee the quality (i.e. repetition of items to check consistency in responses throughout the survey) [14]. Second, as for possible lack of representativeness this should not be a problem in the current context, since studying the relationship between different instruments does not require a representative sample of the population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We adopted the new EQ-5D-5L value set for England based on both timetrade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) [13], which will be referred to as the new England tariff. In one descriptive analysis, the interim UK cross-walk tariff was also included [14,15].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The analysis is based on a unique data set from the Multi Instrument Comparison (MIC) project [12]. Given the dominant role of the EQ-5D in this literature, an important contribution is to use the new 5-level descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L), and its most recent tariff based on preferences expressed using this descriptive system [13], rather than the crosswalk tariff [14] which was based on preferences expressed through the 3-level descriptive system [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 AbstractPurpose Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated non-linear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of non-linearity across the four most widely used HSUinstruments, and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Method Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries; 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of non-linear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange Rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Result Quantile regressions reveal significant non-linear relationships across all four HSUinstruments. The degrees of non-linearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.19, whilst at the upper end it is 0.35. ConclusionComparisons at different utility levels illustrates the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of non-linear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument 3 been used. Accounting for non-linearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY-gains have been based on different HSU-instruments.

show abstract

Interim Scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L Value Sets

Cited by 1,574 publications

References 19 publications

Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses

Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses

Measuring Health and Broader Well-Being Benefits in the Context of Opiate Dependence: The Psychometric Performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L

Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About