EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Anna Selivanova (), Erik Buskens and Paul F. M. Krabbe
Additional contact information
Anna Selivanova: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
Erik Buskens: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
Paul F. M. Krabbe: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen

PharmacoEconomics, 2018, vol. 36, issue 6, 715-725

Abstract: Abstract Background The EQ-5D is a widely used preference-based instrument to measure health-related quality of life. Some methodological drawbacks of its three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) prompted development of a new format (EQ-5D-5L). There is no clear evidence that the new format outperforms the standard version. Objective The objective of this study was to make a head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in a discrete choice model setting giving special attention to the consistency and logical ordering of coefficients for the attribute levels and to the differences in health-state values. Methods Using efficient designs, 240 pairs of EQ-5D-3L health states and 240 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were generated in a pairwise choice format. The study included 3698 Dutch general population respondents, analyzed their responses using a conditional logit model, and compared the values elicited by EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L for different health states. Results No inconsistencies or illogical ordering of level coefficients were observed in either version. The proportion of severe health states with low values was higher in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L, and the proportion of mild/moderate states was lower in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L. Moreover, differences were observed in the relative weights of the attributes. Conclusion Overall distribution of health-state values derived from a large representative sample using the same measurement framework for both versions showed differences between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. However, even small differences in the phrasing (language) of the descriptive system or in the valuation protocol can produce differences in values between these two versions.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0647-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().

 
Page updated 2019-11-06
Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0647-0