An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Belgium.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
accepted:
05
07
2022
pubmed:
5
8
2022
medline:
5
8
2022
entrez:
4
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to establish a Belgian EQ-5D-5L value set based on the preferences of the adult Belgian general population. The most recent EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT 2.1) protocol for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies was followed. Computer-assisted personal interviews were carried out in a representative sample of the adult Belgian population. Potential respondents were randomly selected from the National Register using a multistage, stratified, cluster sampling with unequal probability design. Each respondent valued 10 or 11 health states using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and 14 health states in seven paired choice tasks using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Different model specifications were explored and assessed based on logical consistency, goodness of fit, predictive accuracy and theoretical considerations. A total of 892 respondents were included in the analyses. The sample was representative of the Belgian adult population in terms of age, sex, region of residence, educational attainment, labour market status, self-assessed health status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The preferred model specification was a hybrid (DCE and cTTO data combined) multiplicative eight-coefficient model with intercept random effects and correction for heteroskedasticity. Values range from - 0.532 to 1. Loss of HRQoL is highest in the dimension pain/discomfort, closely followed by anxiety/depression. This study developed a Belgian EQ-5D-5L value set, based on the preferences of the Belgian adult general population. It provides opportunities for future clinical and economic evaluations in healthcare, for the measurement of patient-reported outcomes and for population health assessments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35927410
doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00353-3
pii: 10.1007/s41669-022-00353-3
pmc: PMC9362639
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
823-836Subventions
Organisme : EuroQol Research Foundation
ID : 20170490
Organisme : EuroQol Research Foundation
ID : 20170491
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Thiry N, Neyt M, Van De Sande S, Cleemput I. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations: second edition. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(6):601–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462314000725 .
doi: 10.1017/s0266462314000725
pubmed: 25816826
Royal Decree laying down the procedures, periods and conditions regarding the reimbursement of the costs of pharmaceutical specialities by the compulsory health and disability insurance. Belgian official journal 1 February 2018.
Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
pubmed: 32514643
pmcid: 7561556
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
pubmed: 21479777
pmcid: 3220807
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4
pubmed: 23184421
Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45(3):259–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81 .
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81
pubmed: 17304084
Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8
pubmed: 29470821
pmcid: 5954015
Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8
pubmed: 26489956
pmcid: 4618130
Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033 .
doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033
pubmed: 21037243
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1
pubmed: 27084198
pmcid: 5023738
Cleemput I. A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0167-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-009-0167-0
pubmed: 19582490
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value in Health. 2012;15(5):708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
pubmed: 22867780
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002
pubmed: 24969006
Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010
pubmed: 30661630
Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PFM, Revicki D, Viney R, Devlin N, et al. A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):867–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9
pubmed: 26026667
pmcid: 4519579
Oppe M, van Hout B. The, “power” of eliciting EQ-5D-5L values: the experimental design of the EQ-VT. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group; 2017.
Demarest S, Van der Heyden J, Charafeddine R, Drieskens S, Gisle L, Tafforeau J. Methodological basics and evolution of the Belgian health interview survey 1997–2008. Arch Public Health. 2013;71(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/0778-7367-71-24 .
doi: 10.1186/0778-7367-71-24
pubmed: 24047278
pmcid: 3844891
Janssen BMF, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2
pmcid: 3728457
Shah KK, Lloyd A, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(1):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0509-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0509-9
pmcid: 3728432
Jensen CE, Sørensen SS, Gudex C, Jensen MB, Pedersen KM, Ehlers LH. The Danish EQ-5D-5L value set: a hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(4):579–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00639-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00639-3
pubmed: 33527304
pmcid: 8270796
Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Graczyk K, Niewada M. Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states in Poland: the first EQ-VT-based study in central and eastern Europe. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1165–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00811-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00811-7
pubmed: 31161586
pmcid: 6830402
Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabases JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55(7):e51–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283 .
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283
pubmed: 25521503
van Hout B, Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, Devlin N. The EQ-5D-5L value set for England: response to the “Quality Assurance.” Value Health. 2020;23(5):649–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.013
pubmed: 32389231
Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5
pubmed: 28194657
pmcid: 5343080
Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJ, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012
pubmed: 28292492
Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3564
pubmed: 28833869
Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447 .
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447
pubmed: 26492214
Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Garay OU, Gianneo O, Fernandez G, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):323–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4
pubmed: 26242249
Kim S-H, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1845–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2
pubmed: 26961008
Ferreira PL, Antunes P, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN, Ramos-Goñi JM. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(12):3163–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02226-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02226-5
pubmed: 31201730
Andrade LF, Ludwig K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, de Pouvourville G. A French value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(4):413–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00876-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00876-4
pubmed: 31912325
pmcid: 7080328
Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W. German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):663–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8
pubmed: 29460066
pmcid: 5954069
Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, Shah K, Devlin N, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(11):1345–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0690-x .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0690-x
pubmed: 30051267
pmcid: 6182460
Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig B, Oppe M, van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2016.
Rand-Hendriksen K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Augestad LA, Luo N. Less is more: cross-validation testing of simplified nonlinear regression model specifications for EQ-5D-5L health state values. Value Health. 2017;20(7):945–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.013
pubmed: 28712624
Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016
pubmed: 28408009
Feng Y, Devlin N, Shah K, Mulhern B, van Hout B. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data. London: Office of Health Economics; 2016.
Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, van Hout B. Modeling EQ-5D-5L valuation data. In: Busschbach JJ, editor. 29th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Rotterdam; 2012. p. 61–91.
Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9
pubmed: 28695543
pmcid: 5656740
Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, Saito S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834
pubmed: 27565282
Lin H-W, Li C-I, Lin F-J, Chang J-Y, Gau C-S, Luo N, et al. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L in Taiwan. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12): e0209344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209344 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209344
pubmed: 30586400
pmcid: 6306233
Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulácsi L, Golicki D, Ruzsa G, Pickard AS, et al. Parallel valuation of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L by time trade-off in Hungary. Value Health. 2020;23(9):1235–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.019
pubmed: 32940242
Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Tongsiri S, Ingsrisawang L, Teerawattananon Y. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574 .
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574
pubmed: 29958008
Mai VQ, Sun S, Minh HV, Luo N, Giang KB, Lindholm L, et al. An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02469-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02469-7
pubmed: 32221805
pmcid: 7295839
Al Shabasy S, Abbassi M, Finch A, Roudijk B, Baines D, Farid S. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Egypt. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01100-y .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01100-y
pubmed: 34786590
pmcid: 8595057
Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, Luo N, Rand-Hendriksen K, Md Yusof FA. EQ-5D-5L valuation for the Malaysian population. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(5):715–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7
pubmed: 30535779
SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT®14.1 user’s guide: the NLMIXED procedure. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.; 2015.
Heeringa SG, West BT, Berglund PA. Applied survey data analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315153278 .
doi: 10.1201/9781315153278
Augustovski F, Belizán M, Gibbons L, Reyes N, Stolk E, Craig BM, et al. Peruvian Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L: a direct comparison of time trade-off and discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2020;23(7):880–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.004
pubmed: 32762989
Pickard AS, Law EH, Jiang R, Pullenayegum E, Shaw JW, Xie F, et al. United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value in Health. 2019;22(8):931–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009
pubmed: 31426935
Gutierrez-Delgado C, Galindo-Suárez R-M, Cruz-Santiago C, Shah K, Papadimitropoulos M, Feng Y, et al. EQ-5D-5L health-state values for the Mexican population. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):905–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00658-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00658-0
pubmed: 34173957
pmcid: 8545780