Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach

Juan M Ramos-Goñi, Jose L Pinto-Prades, Mark Oppe, Juan M Cabasés, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Juan M Ramos-Goñi, Jose L Pinto-Prades, Mark Oppe, Juan M Cabasés, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar, Oliver Rivero-Arias

Abstract

Background: The EQ-5D instrument is the most widely used preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in cost-effectiveness analysis of health care technologies. Recently, a version called EQ-5D-5L with 5 levels on each dimension was developed. This manuscript explores the performance of a hybrid approach for the modeling of EQ-5D-5L valuation data.

Methods: Two elicitation techniques, the composite time trade-off, and discrete choice experiments, were applied to a sample of the Spanish population (n=1000) using a computer-based questionnaire. The sampling process consisted of 2 stages: stratified sampling of geographic area, followed by systematic sampling in each area. A hybrid regression model combining composite time trade-off and discrete choice data was used to estimate the potential value sets using main effects as starting point. The comparison between the models was performed using the criteria of logical consistency, goodness of fit, and parsimony.

Results: Twenty-seven participants from the 1000 were removed following the exclusion criteria. The best-fitted model included 2 significant interaction terms but resulted in marginal improvements in model fit compared to the main effects model. We therefore selected the model results with main effects as a potential value set for this methodological study, based on the parsimony criteria. The results showed that the main effects hybrid model was consistent, with a range of utility values between 1 and -0.224.

Conclusion: This paper shows the feasibility of using a hybrid approach to estimate a value set for EQ-5D-5L valuation data.

Conflict of interest statement

J.M.R.-G., J.M.C., M.O., and O.R.-A. are members of the EuroQol Group. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Probability density function of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L value sets.

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2013London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
    1. EuroQol G. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life? Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)? Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736.
    1. Bharmal M, Thomas J. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population? Value Health. 2006;9:262–271.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets? Value Health. 2012;15:708–715.
    1. Devlin N, Krabbe P. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14suppl1–3.
    1. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol? Value Health. 2014;17:445–453.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states? Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model? Med Care. 2005;43:203–220.
    1. Craig BM, Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation? Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:169–174.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, et al. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14suppl 1S25–S31.
    1. Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead? Health Econ. 2006;15:393–402.
    1. Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, et al. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14suppl 1S5–S13.
    1. Salomon J. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data? Popul Health Metr. 2003;1:12.
    1. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models? J Health Econ. 2006;25:418–431.
    1. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. 2005Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, et al. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D? Value Health. 2010;13:1005–1013.
    1. Ramos-Goni JM, Rivero-Arias O, Errea M, et al. Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14suppl 133–42.
    1. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM, Hess S. Approximation of bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs? J Choice Model. 2008;1:98–126.
    1. Oppe M, van Hout B. The optimal hybrid: experimental design and modeling of a combination of TTO and DCE. EuroQol Group Proceedings. 2013. Available at: . Accessed October 11, 2014.
    1. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. In: Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, eds. EuroQol Group Monographs. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
    1. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. 2011College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
    1. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, et al. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7–16.
    1. Hsee CK, Dube J-P, Zhang Y. The prominence effect in Shanghai apartment prices? J Market Res. 2008;45:133–144.
    1. Fischer GW, Hawkins SA. Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect? J Exp Psychol. 1993;19:580–597.
    1. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice? Psychol Rev. 1988;95:371–384.
    1. Carmon Z, Simonson I. Price-quality trade-offs in choice versus matching: new insights into the prominence effect. 1998? J Consum Psychol. 1998;7:323–343.
    1. Oliver A. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy? J Health Econ. 2006;25:803–820.
    1. Sumner W, II, Nease RF., Jr Choice-matching preference reversals in health outcome assessments? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:208–218.
    1. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs? J Math Psychol. 2002;46:315–337.
    1. Hawkins SA. Information processing strategies in riskless preference reversals: the prominence effect? Organ Behav Hum Decis Proces. 1994;59:1–26.
    1. Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, et al. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis? Psychol Bull. 1999;125:576–590.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa