A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population.
BACKGROUND
Decision makers responsible for allocation of healthcare resources may require that health states are valued by the population for whom they are making decisions. To achieve this, health-state descriptions can be combined with a value set that reflects the valuations of the target population. In the decision-utility approach, such a value set is at least partly based on wants and expectations regarding given health states. This may reflect aspects different from the health state experienced and valued by a respondent.


OBJECTIVE
To derive a value set that is completely based on experienced health states, emphasising the patient's perspective, and test its predictive performance in comparison with established approaches.


METHODS
Problem descriptions and rating scale valuations of the EQ-5D were drawn from two representative German population surveys in 2006 and 2007. Two models based on given health states but differing in valuation method (1a, b) were analysed, along with three models based on experienced health states: (2) ordinary least squares regression; (3) scale-transformed regression; and (4) a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and constraint parameter estimation. The models were compared with respect to issues in specification, and accuracy in predicting the actual valuations of experienced health states in a new data set, using correlation, mean error and ranking measures for the latter. In addition, the impact of standardizing experience-based index models for age and sex of the subjects was investigated.


RESULTS
Models 1 (a, b), 2 and 3 partly led to plausible and comparable parameter estimates, but also led to problems of insignificance and inconsistencies in some of the estimates. Model 4 achieved consistency and featured partly equivalent and partly better predictive accuracy. Using this model, mean valuations of health states were much better predicted by the experience-based approach than by the decision-utility approach, especially for health states that frequently (>10) occurred in the population sample. Standardizing the experience-based index models for age and sex further improved predictive accuracy and strengthened the position of model 4.


CONCLUSIONS
A value set for the EQ-5D can be plausibly estimated from experience-based valuations. The approach offers an alternative to decision makers who prefer experience-based valuation over decision utilities in the measurement of health outcome. Although usefulness in population samples was shown, use in a clinical context will first require indication-specific tests. Current limitations include use in a general population only, and a restricted range of health states covered.
Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum Mnchen, Neuherberg, Germany. Leidl@helmholtz-muenchen.de
Reiner
R
Leidl
Peter
P
Reitmeir
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001294:Attitude to Health; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012107:Research Design; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
Value Health. 2009 Jul-Aug;12(5):750-8
19490564
Med Care. 2009 Jan;47(1):53-60
19106731
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767-79
19757870
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):17-27
11206943
Heart. 2006 Jan;92(1):62-7
15797936
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010 Jan;16(1):42-51
19475674
Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):141-54
8733106
Med Decis Making. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):173-81
16525171
Eur J Public Health. 2009 Jun;19(3):228-9
19224935
Med Care. 2009 Feb;47(2):255-61
19169128
Qual Life Res. 2003 Sep;12(6):599-607
14516169
Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):306-9
19744288
Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Jun;6(2):124-30
19787848
Value Health. 2009 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S5-9
19250132
Health Econ. 2006 Jul;15(7):653-64
16498700
Gesundheitswesen. 2010 Aug-Sep;72(8-9):476-86
19802780
J Health Econ. 2007 Sep 1;26(5):992-1002
17276531
Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):403-19
18773392
Health Econ. 2005 Mar;14(3):217-30
15386666
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1194-200
19695009
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):653-64
16765267
Health Econ. 2009 Mar;18(3):363-72
18702081
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):329-34
11475389
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201-8
16466271
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365-84
17488136
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
9366889