Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Development and Testing for the German Population

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Decision 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.

Objectives

To 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.

Methods

Problem 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.

Results

Models 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.

Conclusions

A 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health 2009 Nov; 12 (8): 1194–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, et al. Comparison of population health status in six European countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care 2009 Feb; 47 (2): 255–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (9): 767–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 26]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 Nov; 35 (11): 1095–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, et al. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005 Jun; 6 (2): 124–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J 2008 Jan; 118 (525): 215–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009 Mar; 12 Suppl. 1: S5–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4 (4): 201–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003 Sep; 12 (6): 599–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dolders MGT, Zeegers MPA, Groot W, et al. A metaanalysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 Jul; 59 (7): 653–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010 Mar; 13 (2): 306–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ 2009 Mar; 18 (3): 363–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Broome J. QALYs. J Public Econ 1993; 50: 19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making 2001 Jan–Feb; 21 (1): 17–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001 Jul–Aug; 21 (4): 329–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006 Jul; 15 (7): 653–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheung K, Oema M, Oppe M, et al. EQ-5D user guide: basic information in how to use EQ-5D. Version 2.0 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/User_Guide_v2_March_2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 26]

  19. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (5): 365–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 2006 Jan; 92 (1): 62–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010 Jan; 16(1): 42–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, et al. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2006 Mar–Apr; 26 (2): 173–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mielck A, Vogelmann M, Schweikert B, et al. Health status of adults in Germany: results from a representative survey using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 2010; 72 (8–9): 476–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 Mar–Apr; 5 (2): 141–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Claes C, Greiner W, et al. The German version of the EuroQol questionnaire [in German]. Z Gesundh Wiss 1998; 6: 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  26. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2003: 143–65

    Google Scholar 

  27. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, 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. Med Care 2009 Jan; 47 (1): 53–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bernert S, Fernandez A, Haro JM, et al. Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries. Value Health. Epub 2009 Mar 10

  29. Stevens K, McCabe C, Brazier J, et al. Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: a comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system. J Health Econ 2007 Sep 1;26 (5): 992–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leidl R. Preferences, quality of life and public health. Eur J Public Health 2009 Jun; 19 (3): 228–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005 Mar; 14 (3): 217–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, et al. A linear index for predicting joint health-states utilities from single health-states utilities. Health Econ 2009 Apr; 18 (4): 403–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Postfach 1129, D-85758, Neuherberg, Germany

    Reiner Leidl & Peter Reitmeir

  2. Munich School of Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

    Reiner Leidl

Authors
  1. Reiner Leidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Reitmeir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reiner Leidl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leidl, R., Reitmeir, P. A Value Set for the EQ-5D Based on Experienced Health States. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 521–534 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation