title: Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the feasibility of discrete choice experiments for valuing EQ-5D-5L states using computer-based data collection, the consistency of the estimated regression coefficients produced after modeling the preference data, and to examine the similarity of the values derived across countries.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were collected in Canada, England, The Netherlands, and the United States (US). Interactive software was developed to standardize the format of the choice tasks across countries, except for face-to-face interviewing in England. The choice task required respondents to choose between 2 suboptimal health states. A Bayesian design was used to generate 200 pairs of states that were randomly grouped into 20 blocks. Each respondent completed 1 block of 10 pairs. A main-effects probit model was used to estimate regression coefficients and to derive values.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Approximately 400 respondents participated from each country. The mean time to perform 1 choice task was between 29.2 (US) and 45.2 (England) seconds. All regression coefficients were statistically significant, except level 2 for Usual Activities in The Netherlands (P=0.51). Predictions for the complete set of 3125 EQ-5D-5L health states were similar for the 4 countries. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the countries were high: from 0.80 (England vs. US) through 0.98 (Canada vs.
  Derivation of value sets from the general population using computer-based choice tasks for the EQ-5D-5L is feasible. Parameter estimates were generally consistent and logical, and health-state values were similar across the 4 countries.
authors.affiliation: *Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands †Office of Health Economics, London, UK ‡Institute of Health Policy and Management/Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands §School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK ∥Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL ¶Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
authors.forename: Paul F M
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: Krabbe
authors.forename: Nancy J
authors.initials: NJ
authors.lastname: Devlin
authors.forename: Elly A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Stolk
authors.forename: Koonal K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Oppe
authors.forename: Ben
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: van Hout
authors.forename: Elise H
authors.initials: EH
authors.lastname: Quik
authors.forename: A Simon
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Pickard
authors.forename: Feng
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Xie
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D002170:Canada / Q000453:epidemiology; D002755:Choice Behavior; D004739:England / Q000453:epidemiology; D005260:Female; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009426:Netherlands / Q000453:epidemiology; D057240:Patient Preference / Q000523:psychology* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43
references.pmid: 23245605
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767-79
references.pmid: 19757870
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2012 Jan;31(1):306-18
references.pmid: 22197308
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2006 May;25(3):418-31
references.pmid: 16499981
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):329-34
references.pmid: 11475389
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):459-71
references.pmid: 2732774
references.citation: Med Care. 2007 Sep;45(9):835-41
references.pmid: 17712253
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Jul;14 Suppl 1:S65-73
references.pmid: 23900666
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2003 Sep;4(3):222-31
references.pmid: 15609189
references.citation: Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
references.pmid: 9366889
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1-186
references.pmid: 11262422
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 1982 Sep;11(3):271-5
references.pmid: 7129741
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2013 Oct;22(8):2237-43
references.pmid: 23266797
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
references.pmid: 21479777
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 Nov 21;8(11):e79494
references.pmid: 24278141
references.citation: Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):1005-13
references.pmid: 20825618
references.citation: Health Econ. 2009 Nov;18(11):1261-76
references.pmid: 19142985
references.citation: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013 Feb;13(1):93-108
references.pmid: 23402450
references.citation: PLoS One. 2014 Feb 21;9(2):e89091
references.pmid: 24586520
references.citation: Med Care. 2009 Feb;47(2):255-61
references.pmid: 19169128
references.citation: Med Care. 2008 Apr;46(4):357-65
references.pmid: 18362814
references.citation: Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):104-13
references.pmid: 23337221
references.citation: Popul Health Metr. 2003 Dec 19;1(1):12
references.pmid: 14687419
references.citation: Health Policy. 2001 Sep;57(3):193-204
references.pmid: 11459626
references.citation: Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):445-53
references.pmid: 24969006