Benjamin M Craig1, Kim Rand2,3. 1. Department of Economics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 2. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo. 3. Health Services Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 5-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) was introduced as an improvement on the original 3-level version (EQ-5D-3L). To date, 6 country-specific value sets have been published for EQ-5D-5L and 9 US value sets have been published for other instruments. Our aims were to (1) produce EQ-5D-5L values on a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale from the perspective of US adults and (2) compare them with US EQ-5D-3L values and the other country-specific EQ-5D-5L values. METHODS: In 2016, 8222 US respondents from all 50 states and Washington, DC completed an online survey including a discrete choice experiment with 20 paired comparisons. Each comparison asked respondents, "Which do you prefer?" regarding a pair of alternatives described using EQ-5D-5L and lifespan attributes. On the basis of more than 50 choices on each of the 3160 pairs, we estimated EQ-5D-5L values on a QALY scale and compared them with the US EQ-5D-3L values and the other country-specific EQ-5D-5L values. RESULTS: Ranging from -0.287 (55555) to 0.992 (11121) on a QALY scale, the estimated EQ-5D-5L values were similar to the US EQ-5D-3L values. Compared with the US EQ-5D-3L values, the values exhibited greater sensitivity and specificity and higher correlation with the EQ-5D-5L values of other countries, particularly England. CONCLUSIONS: Like previous US valuation studies, this study produced nationally representative EQ-5D-5L values on a QALY scale. The results further demonstrate the advantages of the EQ-5D-5L over its 3-level predecessor as a preference-based summary measure of health-related quality of life from the perspective of US adults.
BACKGROUND: The 5-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) was introduced as an improvement on the original 3-level version (EQ-5D-3L). To date, 6 country-specific value sets have been published for EQ-5D-5L and 9 US value sets have been published for other instruments. Our aims were to (1) produce EQ-5D-5L values on a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale from the perspective of US adults and (2) compare them with US EQ-5D-3L values and the other country-specific EQ-5D-5L values. METHODS: In 2016, 8222 US respondents from all 50 states and Washington, DC completed an online survey including a discrete choice experiment with 20 paired comparisons. Each comparison asked respondents, "Which do you prefer?" regarding a pair of alternatives described using EQ-5D-5L and lifespan attributes. On the basis of more than 50 choices on each of the 3160 pairs, we estimated EQ-5D-5L values on a QALY scale and compared them with the US EQ-5D-3L values and the other country-specific EQ-5D-5L values. RESULTS: Ranging from -0.287 (55555) to 0.992 (11121) on a QALY scale, the estimated EQ-5D-5L values were similar to the US EQ-5D-3L values. Compared with the US EQ-5D-3L values, the values exhibited greater sensitivity and specificity and higher correlation with the EQ-5D-5L values of other countries, particularly England. CONCLUSIONS: Like previous US valuation studies, this study produced nationally representative EQ-5D-5L values on a QALY scale. The results further demonstrate the advantages of the EQ-5D-5L over its 3-level predecessor as a preference-based summary measure of health-related quality of life from the perspective of US adults.
Authors: Sarah A Kelleher; Joseph G Winger; Hannah M Fisher; Shannon N Miller; Shelby D Reed; Beverly E Thorn; Bonnie Spring; Gregory P Samsa; Catherine M Majestic; Rebecca A Shelby; Linda M Sutton; Francis J Keefe; Tamara J Somers Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Kristin L Rising; Mackenzie Kemp; Patricia Davidson; Judd E Hollander; Serge Jabbour; Eric Jutkowitz; Benjamin E Leiby; Cheryl Marco; Ian McElwee; Geoffrey Mills; Laura Pizzi; Rhea E Powell; Anna Marie Chang Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 2.261