IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p635-645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?

Author

Listed:
  • Franz Ombler

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)

  • Michael Albert

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)

  • Paul Hansen

    (Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)

Abstract

The calculation of quality-adjusted life years, as used for cost–utility analysis, depends on the availability of value sets representing people’s preferences with respect to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A value set consists of HRQoL index values for all health states representable by the particular descriptive system used, of which the EQ-5D (EuroQoL, 5 Dimensions) is by far the most widely used. High correlation coefficients for EQ-5D value sets derived from different samples—across countries and/or using different valuation techniques—are conventionally interpreted as evidence that the people in the respective samples have similar HRQoL preferences. However, EQ-5D value sets—for both versions of the system (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L)—contain many inherent rankings of health state values by design . By calculating correlation coefficients for value sets created from random data, we demonstrate that “high†coefficients are artifacts of these inherent rankings, such as median Pearson’s r = 0.783 for the EQ-5D-3L and 0.850 for the EQ-5D-5L instead of zero. Therefore, high correlation coefficients do not necessarily constitute evidence of meaningful associations in terms of similar HRQoL preferences. After calculating significance levels based on our simulations—available as an online resource for other researchers—we find that many high coefficients are not as significant as conventionally interpreted, whereas other coefficients are not significant. These “high†but insignificant correlations are in fact spurious.

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:635-645
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18778295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18778295
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18778295?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. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    2. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    3. Badia, Xavier & Roset, Monserrat & Herdman, Michael, 1999. "Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 943-950, October.
    4. Feng Xie & Kathryn Gaebel & Kuhan Perampaladas & Brett Doble & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014. "Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 8-20, January.
    5. Nan Luo & Jeffrey A. Johnson & James W. Shaw & Stephen Joel Coons, 2007. "A Comparison of EQ-5D Index Scores Derived from the US and UK Population-Based Scoring Functions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 321-326, May.
    6. Nancy Devlin & Paul Krabbe, 2013. "The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 1-3, July.
    7. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    8. David Parkin & Nigel Rice & Nancy Devlin, 2010. "Statistical Analysis of EQ-5D Profiles: Does the Use of Value Sets Bias Inference?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 556-565, September.
    9. Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya & John Brazier & Aslam Anis, 2012. "Canadian Valuation of EQ-5D Health States: Preliminary Value Set and Considerations for Future Valuation Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Liv Ariane Augestad & Fredrik A. Dahl & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "A Shortcut to Mean-Based Time Tradeoff Tariffs for the EQ-5D?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 569-577, July.
    11. Dolan, Paul & Kind, Paul, 1996. "Inconsistency and health state valuations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 609-615, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    2. Raymond Oppong & Billingsley Kaambwa & Jacqueline Nuttall & Kerenza Hood & Richard Smith & Joanna Coast, 2013. "The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, April.
    3. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    4. Marian Sorin Paveliu & Elena Olariu & Raluca Caplescu & Yemi Oluboyede & Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Simona Ernu & Luke Vale, 2021. "Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    6. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    7. Zhihao Yang & Jan van Busschbach & Reinier Timman & M F Janssen & Nan Luo, 2017. "Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
    8. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    9. N J Devlin & P Hansen & P Kind & A H Williams, 2000. "The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs," Working Papers 180chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    11. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    14. Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    15. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    16. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    18. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:38:y:2018:i:6:p:635-645. 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.