Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England

被引:885
作者
Devlin, Nancy J. [1 ,2 ]
Shah, Koonal K. [1 ]
Feng, Yan [1 ]
Mulhern, Brendan [2 ,3 ]
van Hout, Ben [2 ]
机构
[1] Off Hlth Econ, 105 Victoria St, London SW1E 6QT, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Technol Sydney, Ctr Hlth Econ Res & Evaluat, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
EQ-5D-5L; NICE; PROMs; quality of life; stated preferences; STATES WORSE; VALUATION; POPULATION; UTILITIES; PROTOCOLS; TARIFF;
D O I
10.1002/hec.3564
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
A new version of the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D-5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ-5D-5L data in decision-making. The study design followed an international research protocol. Randomly selected members of the English general public completed 10 time trade-off and 7 discrete choice experiment tasks in face-to-face interviews. A 20-parameter hybrid model was used to combine time trade-off and discrete choice experiment data to generate values for the 3,125 EQ-5D-5L health states. Valuation data are available for 996 respondents. Face validity of the data has been demonstrated, with more severe health states generally given lower values. Problems with pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression received the greatest weight. Compared to the existing EQ-5D-3L value set, there are considerably fewer worse than dead states (5.1%, compared with over one third), and the minimum value is higher. Values range from -0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ-5D-5L both in England and internationally. Quality-adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 22
页数:16
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, GUID EC EV HLTH TECH, V3rd
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2017, COST EFFECTIVENESS H
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2007, EQ 5D VALUE SETS INV
[4]  
Augustovski F, 2016, QUAL LIFE RES, V25, P323, DOI 10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4
[5]   ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN A SPANISH POPULATION WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: THE SLIMS STUDY [J].
Balana, M. ;
Lahoz, R. ;
Hernandez, M. ;
Blanco, J. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2012, 15 (07) :A556-A556
[6]   Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values [J].
Bansback, Nick ;
Brazier, John ;
Tsuchiya, Aki ;
Anis, Aslam .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2012, 31 (01) :306-318
[7]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[8]  
Brazier J., 2017, Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation, DOI DOI 10.1093/MED/9780198725923.001.0001/MED-9780198725923
[9]  
Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, 2013, QUAL ACC 2013 2014
[10]  
Devlin N., 2010, Getting the most out of PROMS: putting health outcomes at the heart of the NHS decision-making