IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i6d10.1007_s40273-018-0628-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Yan Feng

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Koonal Shah

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Mathieu F. Janssen

    (Erasmus University)

  • Michael Herdman

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Ben Hout

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics)

Abstract

Background Three EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences. Objective The aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets. Methods We carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Results The distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order. Conclusions There are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 699-713, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0628-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Feng & Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 23-38, January.
    2. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    3. Richard Layard, 2015. "A New Priority for Mental Health," CEP Election Analysis Papers 035, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    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. Merili Tamson & Rainer Reile & Diana Sokurova & Kaire Innos & Eha Nurk & Kaia Laidra & Sigrid Vorobjov, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Socio-Demographic and Behavioural Correlates during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Estonia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2019. "EQ-5D-5L is More Responsive than EQ-5D-3L to Treatment Benefit of Cataract Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 383-392, August.
    3. Anna Selivanova & Erik Buskens & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2018. "Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 715-725, June.
    4. Eliza Kruger & Daniel Aggio & Hayley Freitas & Andrew Lloyd, 2023. "Estimation of Health Utility Scores for Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 627-638, July.
    5. Nancy Devlin & John Brazier & A. Simon Pickard & Elly Stolk, 2018. "3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 637-640, June.
    6. Becky Pennington & Monica Hernandez-Alava & Stephen Pudney & Allan Wailoo, 2019. "The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 75-84, January.
    7. Ângela Jornada Ben & Johanna M. Dongen & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Mohamed El Alili & Judith E. Bosmans, 2023. "To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1253-1270, 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. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    2. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    3. Anne‐Laure Samson & Erik Schokkaert & Clémence Thébaut & Brigitte Dormont & Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Carine Van de Voorde, 2018. "Fairness in cost‐benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 102-114, January.
    4. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    5. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Joke A. M. Hunfeld & Aulia Iskandarsyah & Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Jan Passchier & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2017. "The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1153-1165, November.
    7. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    8. Anna Selivanova & Erik Buskens & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2018. "Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 715-725, June.
    9. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    10. Andrew Lloyd & Kim Rand & Cleo Pike & Crispin Ellis, 2024. "Preference-based utility weights for the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life Questionnaire (INQoL), with a focus on non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1461-1469, November.
    11. Antony P. Martin & Enrico Ferri Grazzi & Claudia Mighiu & Manoj Chevli & Farrukh Shah & Louise Maher & Anum Shaikh & Aliah Sagar & Hayley Hubberstey & Bethany Franks & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe &, 2023. "Health state utilities for beta-thalassemia: a time trade-off study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 27-38, February.
    12. Teresa C. O. Tsui & Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2024. "Creating a Multiply Imputed Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L in Canada: State-Level Misspecification Terms Are Needed to Characterize Parameter Uncertainty Correctly," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 405-414, May.
    13. Zhihao Yang & Kim Rand & Elly Stolk & Jan Busschbach & Nan Luo, 2024. "Exploring non-iterative time trade-off methods for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1087-1094, September.
    14. Phil McEwan & James Baker-Knight & Björg Ásbjörnsdóttir & Yunni Yi & Aimee Fox & Robin Wyn, 2023. "Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 187-196, March.
    15. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    16. Ruixuan Jiang & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee & Axel Mühlbacher & James Shaw & Surrey Walton & A. Simon Pickard, 2021. "Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 17-33, February.
    17. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.
    18. Frey, Bruno S., 2017. "Research on Well-Being: Determinants, Effects, and its Relevance for Management," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 71(4), pages 358-367.
    19. Mike Herdman & Jameel Nazir & Zalmai Hakimi & Emad Siddiqui & Moses Huang & Marco Pavesi & Scott MacDiarmid & Marcus J. Drake & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "Assessing Preference-Based Outcome Measures for Overactive Bladder: An Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Data from the BESIDE Clinical Trial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 677-686, December.
    20. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2024. "COVID-19 and EQ-5D-5L health state valuation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 117-145, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0628-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.