IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p186-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Health State Selection on the Valuation of EQ-5D

Author

Listed:
  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang
  • Paul Kind

Abstract

Background. Many aspects of valuation study designs are poorly understood, and the size and composition of health states used in valuation studies vary widely. Our aims were to investigate the impact of the selection of a subset of EQ-5D health states in generating a set of visual analog scale (VAS)–based values. Our aims were to investigate the optimal number of health states, the sample size required per health state, and which combinations of health states are required to establish a EQ-5D VAS value set. Methods. Data were drawn from a United Kingdom (UK) general population postal survey in which all health states defined by EQ-5D were evaluated using VAS. We used a simulation approach to address each question, and the performance of each estimation model was assessed by the average value of the mean absolute errors. Results. Despite the constraint of the small sample size in the study dataset, the results suggest that the optimal number of states for a valuation study is 32, 100 observations per health state were sufficient, and multiple subsets of health states were feasible. Conclusions. Selecting health states not included in the “Measurement and Valuation of Health†dataset in valuation studies is quite specifically encouraged. However, it remains prudent to ensure that the selection of health states covers as wide a range of severity as possible. Setting the number of observations per health state to 150 might allow for correction of any errors in data collection or processing. The extent to which the results of this study based on VAS valuation data can be safely generalized to the design of time tradeoff valuation studies remains an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang & Paul Kind, 2011. "The Effect of Health State Selection on the Valuation of EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 186-194, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:186-194
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10371231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10371231
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10371231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    3. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kuhan Perampaladas & Kathryn Gaebel & Brett Doble & Feng Xie, 2015. "Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 847-855, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    2. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Annemieke Leunis & Jolanda J. Luime & Mike Boggild & Carin A. Uyl-de Groot & Elly A. Stolk, 2012. "Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 554-568, July.
    4. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    5. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    6. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    7. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    8. J. Busschbach & B. Wolffenbuttel & L. Annemans & W. Meerding & M. Kołtowska-Häggström, 2011. "Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 243-252, June.
    9. Renske Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2013. "How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1105-1119, December.
    10. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    11. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    12. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    13. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    14. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    17. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    18. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    19. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    20. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:186-194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.