Ernest H Law1,2,3, A Simon Pickard1,2,3, Feng Xie1,2,3, Surrey M Walton1,2,3, Todd A Lee1,2,3, Alan Schwartz1,2,3. 1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL (EHL, ASP, SMW, TAL). 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (FX). 3. Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL (AS).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EQ-5D-3L (3L) health state values derived from a common sample. METHODS: Data from the 2017 US EQ-5D valuation study were analyzed. Value sets were estimated with random-effects linear regression based on composite time trade-off (cTTO) valuations for 3L and 5L health states with 2 approaches to model specification: main effects only and additional N3/N45 terms. Properties of the descriptive system and value set characteristics were compared by examining distributions of predicted index scores, ceiling effects, and single-level transition values from adjacent corner health states. Mean transition values were calculated for all predicted 3L and 5L health states and plotted against baseline index scores. RESULTS: A total of 1062 respondents were included in the analysis. The observed mean cTTO values for the worst possible 3L and 5L health states were -0.423 and -0.343, respectively. The range of scale was larger with the 3L, compared to the 5L, for both main effects and N term models. Values for the mildest 5L health states (range, 0.857-0.924) were similar to 11111 for the 3L. Parameter estimates for matched dimension levels differed by <|0.07| except for the most severe level of Mobility. For the main effects model, 3L mean transition values were greater for more severe baseline 3L index scores, whereas 5L mean transition values remained constant irrespective of the baseline index score. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 3L, the 5L exhibited a lower ceiling effect and improved measurement properties. There was a larger range of scale for the 3L compared to 5L; however, this difference was driven by differences in preference for the most severe level of problems in Mobility.
OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EQ-5D-3L (3L) health state values derived from a common sample. METHODS: Data from the 2017 US EQ-5D valuation study were analyzed. Value sets were estimated with random-effects linear regression based on composite time trade-off (cTTO) valuations for 3L and 5L health states with 2 approaches to model specification: main effects only and additional N3/N45 terms. Properties of the descriptive system and value set characteristics were compared by examining distributions of predicted index scores, ceiling effects, and single-level transition values from adjacent corner health states. Mean transition values were calculated for all predicted 3L and 5L health states and plotted against baseline index scores. RESULTS: A total of 1062 respondents were included in the analysis. The observed mean cTTO values for the worst possible 3L and 5L health states were -0.423 and -0.343, respectively. The range of scale was larger with the 3L, compared to the 5L, for both main effects and N term models. Values for the mildest 5L health states (range, 0.857-0.924) were similar to 11111 for the 3L. Parameter estimates for matched dimension levels differed by <|0.07| except for the most severe level of Mobility. For the main effects model, 3L mean transition values were greater for more severe baseline 3L index scores, whereas 5L mean transition values remained constant irrespective of the baseline index score. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 3L, the 5L exhibited a lower ceiling effect and improved measurement properties. There was a larger range of scale for the 3L compared to 5L; however, this difference was driven by differences in preference for the most severe level of problems in Mobility.
Keywords:
EQ-5D; descriptive system; health preferences; health utility; preference-based measures; quality-adjusted life year; time tradeoff; value sets
Authors: Ruo-Yu Zhang; Wei Wang; Hui-Jun Zhou; Jian-Wei Xuan; Nan Luo; Pei Wang Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.077
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: Elena Olariu; Marian Sorin Paveliu; Eugen Baican; Yemi Oluboyede; Luke Vale; Ileana Gabriela Niculescu-Aron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-18 Impact factor: 2.692