IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i11d10.1007_s40273-022-01172-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Mathieu F. Janssen

    (Erasmus MC)

  • Ines Buchholz

    (EuroQol Group)

  • Dominik Golicki

    (Medical University of Warsaw)

  • Gouke J. Bonsel

    (Erasmus MC
    Erasmus Medical Center)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L (3L) with EQ-5D-5L (5L) descriptive systems and value sets in two independent samples (rehabilitation and stroke patients). Methods Descriptive system results were compared cross-sectionally, and descriptive responsiveness was tested by calculating changed level responses (‘moves’) from baseline to follow-up, proportion of improved patients, Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC), and probability of superiority (PS). Responsiveness of values based on nine country-specific value sets was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and standardized effect size (SES). Relative efficiency of 5L over 3L was assessed by calculating ratios of the SRM and SES statistics. Results Descriptive comparisons confirmed earlier evidence and showed a consistent overestimation of health problems in 3L. Descriptive responsiveness improved with 5L in terms of moves per respondent, proportions of improved patients and PS, whereas PCHC showed mixed results. Better value responsiveness statistics were observed for 5L in rehabilitation patients for all value sets. In stroke patients, 3L showed better responsiveness statistics compared with 5L. Relative efficiency results were moderately to strongly better with 5L for rehabilitation, and slightly to moderately better with 3L for stroke. Conclusions Descriptive results were the main driver of 3L–5L responsiveness differences. Responsiveness of 3L was influenced by the ‘confined to bed’ label and the overestimation bias of 3L, which affected all responsiveness results. This may impact quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimations, leading to over- or underestimations of QALYs gained, depending on the condition and condition severity. QALY calculations based on 5L data will result in more accurate estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathieu F. Janssen & Ines Buchholz & Dominik Golicki & Gouke J. Bonsel, 2022. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1081-1093, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01172-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01172-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01172-4
    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/s40273-022-01172-4?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. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    2. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    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)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Méndez, Ildefonso & Abellán Perpiñán, Jose M. & Sánchez Martínez, Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2011. "Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: An illustration using the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1280-1292.
    5. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Mathieu F. Janssen & Gouke J. Bonsel & Nan Luo, 2018. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 675-697, June.
    8. Julie Chevalier & Gérard Pouvourville, 2013. "Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 57-66, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2018. "Conducting EQ-5D Valuation Studies in Resource-Constrained Countries: The Potential Use of Shrinkage Estimators to Reduce Sample Size," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 26-33, January.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    15. 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.
    16. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    17. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    18. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    20. 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.

    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:40:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01172-4. 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.