EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future

Nancy J Devlin, Richard Brooks, Nancy J Devlin, Richard Brooks

Abstract

Over the period 1987-1991 an inter-disciplinary five-country group developed the EuroQol instrument, a five-dimensional three-level generic measure subsequently termed the 'EQ-5D'. It was designed to measure and value health status. The salient features of its development and its consolidation and expansion are discussed. Initial expansion came, in particular, in the form of new language versions. Their development raised translation and semantic issues, experience with which helped feed into the design of two further instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the youth version EQ-5D-Y. The expanded usage across clinical programmes, disease and condition areas, population surveys, patient-reported outcomes, and value sets is outlined. Valuation has been of continued relevance for the Group as this has allowed its instruments to be utilised as part of the economic appraisal of health programmes and their incorporation into health technology assessments. The future of the Group is considered in the context of: (1) its scientific strategy, (2) changes in the external environment affecting the demand for EQ-5D, and (3) a variety of issues it is facing in the context of the design of the instrument, its use in health technology assessment, and potential new uses for EQ-5D outside of clinical trials and technology appraisal.

Conflict of interest statement

ND was the elected Chair of the EuroQol Group 2010–2014, and both Nancy and RB are members of the EuroQol Group.

References

    1. The EuroQol Group EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;36:199–208.
    1. Brooks R, on behalf of the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
    1. Brooks R. The EuroQol group after 25 years. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
    1. Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. pp. 19–27.
    1. Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin N. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res. 2014. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z.
    1. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper 138. York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995.
    1. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2013.
    1. Nice . Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.
    1. Fox-Rushby J, Selai C. What concepts does the EQ-5D measure? Intentions and interpretations. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003. pp. 167–182.
    1. Rabin R, Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. Exploring the results of translating the EQ-5D into 11 European languages. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003. pp. 191–205.
    1. Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17:70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006.
    1. Bonsel G, van Agt H. The number of levels in the descriptive system. In: Busschbach J, Bonsel G, de Charro F, editors. Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, Rotterdam October 1993. Rotterdam: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment; 1994. p. 115–20.
    1. Kind P, Macran S. Levelling the playing field: increasing the number of response categories in EQ-5D. In Kind P, Macran S, editors. 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers, York, UK, September 2002. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2002. p. 311–22.
    1. Janssen M, Birnie E, Bonsel G. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three level system and a five level version according to 2 methods. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:463–473. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5.
    1. Pickard S, de Leon M, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45:259–263. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.
    1. Janssen M, Birnie E, Haagsma J, Bonsel G. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three level system with a five level version. Value Health. 2008;11:275–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.
    1. Pickard S, Kohlmann T, Janssen M, Bonsel G, Rosenbloom S, Cella D. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Med Care. 2007;45:812–819. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31805371aa.
    1. Herdman M, Kind P, Chevalier J, Gudex C, de Pourvourville G. Investigation of labels for additional EQ-5D levels: results of the main study + 1. In: Busschbach J, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. 24th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Proceedings. The Hague: EuroQol Group; 2007. p. 99–151.
    1. Lloyd A, Quadri N. Testing alternative labels for a UK English five level version of EQ-5D. In: Scalone L, Mantovani LG, editors. 25th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Proceedings. Baveno: EuroQol Group; 2008. p. 41–73.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Hennessy S, Kind P. Measuring health status in children: developing and testing a child-friendly version of EQ-5D. In: Kind P, Macran S, editors. 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers, York, UK, September 2002. York: Centre for Health Economics, 2002. p. 291–310.
    1. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A-C, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Scalone L, Ravens-Sieberer U. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:887–897. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A-C, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Olivares P, Scalone L, Greiner W. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:887–897. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x.
    1. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, editors. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard S. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
    1. Stolk E, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe P. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005–1013. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x.
    1. .
    1. Oppe M, Devlin N, van Hout B, Krabbe P, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.
    1. EuroQol Group 2016a. EuroQol Group 2015a. . Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
    1. EuroQol Group 2016b. EuroQol Group 2015b. . Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
    1. Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. Using patient reported outcomes to improve health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2015.
    1. Calvert M, Thwaites R, Kyte D, Devlin N. Putting patient-reported outcomes on the ‘Big Data Road Map’. J R Soc Med. 2015;108:299–303. doi: 10.1177/0141076815579896.
    1. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Hernandez Alva M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment No. 18.9. 2014. . Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
    1. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18:52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.004.
    1. Swinburn S, Lloyd A, Boye K, Edson-Heredia E, Bowman L, Janssen B. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health. 2013;16(1156–62):36.
    1. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system: a “bolt-on” experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:42–53. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13480428.
    1. Lorgelly P. Choice of outcome measure in economic evaluation: a potential role for the capability approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:849–855. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0275-x.
    1. Devlin N, Lorgelly P. QALYs as a measure of value in cancer. J Cancer Policy. doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2016-09-005.
    1. Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:557–565. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0194-1.
    1. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1. doi: 10.1007/s40273-012-0001-x.
    1. Bansback N, Trenaman L, Bryan S, Johnson J. 2015 using routine patient reported outcome measures to enhance patient decision making: a proof of concept study. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:109.
    1. Tsuchiya A, Williams A. Welfare economics and economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 27–28.
    1. Brazier J, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:705–712. doi: 10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000.
    1. Kind P. Cost-effectiveness analysis: a view into the abyss. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;3:269–271. doi: 10.1007/s40258-014-0134-5.
    1. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s40273-012-0001-x.
    1. Yong C, Jiang Y, Sun D, Duttagupta S. Evolution and influence of HTA in emerging markets. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1805.
    1. Glassman A, Giedion U, McQueston K. Priority setting for health in emerging markets. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2:283–291. doi: 10.2217/cer.13.12.
    1. Yang B. The future of health technology assessment in healthcare decision making in Asia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:891. doi: 10.2165/11310280-000000000-00000.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다