Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND:Valuations of health states were affected by the wording of the two instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) and by the perspective taken (child or adult). OBJECTIVES:There is a growing demand for value sets for the EQ-5D-Y (EQ-5D instrument for younger populations). Given the similarities between EQ-5D-Y and EQ-5D-3L, we investigated whether valuations of health states were affected by the differences in wording between the two instruments and by the perspective taken in the valuation exercise (child or adult). STUDY DESIGN:Respondents were randomly assigned to EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y (instrument) and further into two groups that either valued health states for an adult or for a 10-year-old child (perspective). The valuation tasks were composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and discrete choice experiments (DCE), including comparisons with death (DCE + death). Members of the adult general population in four countries (Germany, Netherlands, Spain, England) participated in computer-assisted personal interviews. METHODS:Two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc tests were used to compare C-TTO responses and chi-square tests were conducted to compare DCE + death valuations. RESULTS:A significant interaction effect between instrument and perspective for C-TTO responses was found. Significant differences by perspective (adult and child) occurred only for the EQ-5D-3L. Significant differences in values between instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) occurred only for the adult perspective. Both significant results were confirmed by the DCE + death results. When comparing EQ-5D-3L for adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y for child perspective, values were also significantly different. CONCLUSIONS:The results identified an interaction effect between wording of the instrument and perspective on elicited values, suggesting that current EQ-5D-3L value sets should not be employed to assign values to EQ-5D-Y health states.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.002

Type

Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Publication Date

11/2018

Volume

21

Pages

1291 - 1298

Addresses

Bielefeld University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management. Electronic address: simone.kreimeier@uni-bielefeld.de.