Ben van Hout1, Brendan Mulhern2, Yan Feng3, Koonal Shah4, Nancy Devlin5. 1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK; Pharmerit International, York, England, UK. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK; Center for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University London, London, England, UK. 4. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK; Office of Health Economics, London, England, UK. 5. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: nancy.devlin@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To respond to the 'quality assurance' of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England study. METHODS: We provide a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the authors of the quality assurance paper, drawing on theoretical arguments, empirical analyses and practical considerations. RESULTS: We provide evidence to show that many of the points made by the authors of the quality assurance are misleading, suggest misunderstandings, or are irrelevant. CONCLUSIONS: The modeling approaches which were used appropriately address the characteristics of the data and provide a reasonable representation of the average stated preferences of general public in England. We provide reflections on the conduct of stated preference studies, and suggestions for the way forward.
OBJECTIVES: To respond to the 'quality assurance' of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England study. METHODS: We provide a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the authors of the quality assurance paper, drawing on theoretical arguments, empirical analyses and practical considerations. RESULTS: We provide evidence to show that many of the points made by the authors of the quality assurance are misleading, suggest misunderstandings, or are irrelevant. CONCLUSIONS: The modeling approaches which were used appropriately address the characteristics of the data and provide a reasonable representation of the average stated preferences of general public in England. We provide reflections on the conduct of stated preference studies, and suggestions for the way forward.