Advertisement

A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set

  • Pedro L. Ferreira
  • Patrícia Antunes
  • Lara N. FerreiraEmail author
  • Luís N. Pereira
  • Juan M. Ramos-Goñi
Article

Abstract

Background

The EQ-5D is a generic preference-based quality of life measure considered useful for supporting clinical and policy decisions by providing utility values that can easily be converted into quality-adjusted life years to be integrated in cost-utility economic evaluations. Although the three-level classification system of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) is still the most popular preference-based instrument used worldwide, several studies reported a ceiling effect on this version, especially in healthy and/or young individuals. In 2009, the EuroQol Group introduced a five-level EQ-5D, which expands the descriptive system from three to five levels within the same five dimensions. For this version to be used in health economic evaluation, societal values need to be assigned to the 3125 health states generated by this instrument.

Objectives

The aims of this study were to elicit the EQ-5D-5L health state preferences from the general Portuguese population and to derive the Portuguese value set for the EQ-5D-5L.

Methods

A representative sample of the Portuguese general population aged above 18 years was stratified by age and gender (n = 1451). Between October 2015 and July 2016, 28 interviewers carried out a series of 1-h-long computer-assisted personal interviews following the EuroQol Valuation Technology protocol. Each interview included the valuation of ten health states using the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and seven pairs of discrete choice experiments (DCEs). A standardized tool for quality control was used to assess the quality of the data as well as direct supervision and cross-examination of 10% of the global sample size. Data from both cTTO and DCE valuation tasks were modelled using a censored heteroskedastic hybrid model.

Results

Interviewers complied with the quality control protocol in providing high-quality valuation data. The hybrid econometric model had consistent and significant parameters. The derived societal values for the Portuguese population ranged from − 0.603 to 1.

Conclusion

This study provided the Portuguese value set for the EQ-5D-5L on the basis of a hybrid econometric model using cTTO and DCE data. These results represent the preferences of the Portuguese population and are recommended to inform health decision-making in Portugal.

Keywords

EQ-5D-5L Preferences Portuguese value set Composite time trade-off Discrete choice experiment Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was part of an EuroQoL international project aimed at obtaining country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets. The authors are grateful to the EuroQol Group (Elly Stolk and Bernhard Slaap) for the opportunity to implement this study in Portugal and to the technical team (Kristina Ludwig and Arnd Jan Prause) for their continuous advice and support. Views expressed in the paper are those of the authors alone. The authors are thankful for support from the Centre for Health Studies & Research-University of Coimbra (CEISUC) [FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology Grant Number UID/MULTI/4066/2019] and from the Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics-University of the Algarve (CIEO) [FCT Grant Number UID/SOC/04020/2019].

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the EuroQol Research Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

One author discloses that he is a member of the EuroQol Group, an organization focused on the development of instruments that describe and value health outside the for-profit model. The views expressed by the authors in the publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was reviewed and approved by the (Portuguese) National Data Protection Commission (Ref. 1737/2015) to elicit the preferences of the Portuguese general population, preserving the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed about their freedom for refusal.

Supplementary material

11136_2019_2226_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Baltussen, R., & Niessen, L. (2006). Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multicriteria decision analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 4, 14.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devlin, N., & Sussex, J. (2011). Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: Methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technologies assessment. Value in Health, 16, 202–210.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira, L., & Ferreira, P. (2014). Health state values and country-specific value sets. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2744–2749). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., et al. (2010). Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 853–864.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferreira, L., Ferreira, P., & Pereira, L. (2014). Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 27(2), 236–245.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Ribeiro, F. P., & Pereira, L. N. (2016). Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 89.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, J., Luo, N., Shaw, J., Kind, P., & Coons, S. (2005). Valuations of the EQ-5D health states: Are the United States and United Kingdom different? Medical Care, 43(3), 221–228.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yusof, F., Goh, A., & Azmi, S. (2012). Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Value in Health, 15, S85–S90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oppe, M., Devlin, N., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janssen, B., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M., & Stolk, E. (2013). Introducing the composite time trade-off: A test of feasibility and face validity. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 5–13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., & Oppe, M. (2014). The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 413–423.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., & Oppe, M. (2014). EQ-5D Portuguese population norms. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 425–430.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stolk, E., Ludwig, K., Rand, K., van Hout, B., & Ramos-Goñi, J. (2019). Overview, update and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 22(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Portuguese Statistical Office. (2012). Census 2011. Lisbon: Portuguese Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramos-Goñi, J., Pinto-Prades, J., Oppe, M., Cabasks, J., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2017). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care, 55(7), e51–e58.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramos-Goñi, J., Oppe, M., Slaap, B., Busschbach, J., & Stolk, E. (2017). Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value in Health, 20(3), 466–473.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Craig, B., Oppe, M., & van Hout, B. (2016). Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devlin, N., Buckingham, K., Shah, K., Tsuchiya, A., Tilling, C., Wilkinson, G., et al. (2013). A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Economics, 22, 517–532.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramos-Goñi, J., Craig, B., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Pinto-Prades, J., Luo, N., et al. (2018). Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value in Health, 21(5), 596–604.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hobbins, A., Barry, L., Kelleher, D., Shah, K., Devlin, N., Ramos-Goñi, J., et al. (2018). Utility values for health states in Ireland: A value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics, 36(11), 1345–1353.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Purba, F., Hunfeld, J., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T., Sadarjoen, S., Ramos-Goñi, J., et al. (2017). The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics, 35(11), 1153–1165.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ludwig, K., von der Schulenburg, J., & Greiner, W. (2018). German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 663–674.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong, E., Ramos-Goñi, J., Cheung, A., Wong, A., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2018). Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong. Patient, 11(2), 235–247.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang, I.-C., Willke, R., Atkinson, M., Lenderking, W., Frangakis, C., et al. (2007). US and UK version of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference? Quality of Life Research, 16, 1065–1072.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Rowen, D., & Brazier, J. E. (2011). Do Portuguese and UK health state values differ across valuation methods? Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 609–619.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang, Z., Luo, N., Bonsel, G., Busschbach, J., & Stolk, E. (2018). The effect of health state sampling methods on model predictions of EQ-5D-5L values: Small designs can suffice. Value in Health, 22, 38–44.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Attema, A., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M., & Stolk, E. (2013). Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 53–64.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Engel, L., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Doyle-Waters, M., & Whitehurst, D. (2016). Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 36(7), 798–810.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Devlin, N., Hansen, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (2003). Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations—A methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Economics, 12(7), 529–544.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bansback, N., Hole, A., Mulhern, B., & Tsuchiya, A. (2014). Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues. Social Science and Medicine, 114, 38–48.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & van Hout, B. (2015). A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 328–340.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stolk, E., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., & Krabbe, P. (2010). Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: The case of the EQ-5D. Value in Health, 13(8), 1005–1013.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Yang, Y., & Tsuchiya, A. (2012). Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. The European Journal of Health Economics, 13(5), 575–587.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Osch, S., Wakker, P., van den Hout, W., & Stiggelbout, A. (2004). Correcting biases in standard gamble and time trade-off utilities. Medical Decision Making, 24(5), 511–517.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2006). Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics, 15(8), 797–811.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chevalier, J., & Pouvourville, G. (2013). Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. The European Journal Health Economics, 4(1), 57–66.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J., & Schulenburg, J.-M. (2005). Validating the EQ-5D with time trade-off for the German population. The European Journal of Health Economics, 6, 124–130.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shaw, J., Johnson, J., & Coons, S. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brazier, J., Fukahara, S., Roberts, J., Kharroubi, S., Yamamoto, Y., Ikeda, S., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(12), 1323–1331.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., Brazier, J., & Rowen, D. (2010). A portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value in Health, 13(5), 624–630.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lam, C., Brazier, J., & McGhee, S. (2008). Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value in Health, 11(2), 295–303.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cruz, L., Camey, S., Hoffmann, J., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Fleck, M., et al. (2011). Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians. Value in Health, 14(5), S108–S114.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Abellán-Perpiñán, J., Sánchez-Martínez, F., Martínez-Pérez, J., & Méndez, I. (2012). Lowering the “floor” of the SF-6D scoring algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Economics, 21(11), 1271–1285.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Studies and Research of the University of Coimbra (CEISUC)CoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.University of the Algarve, ESGHTFaroPortugal
  4. 4.Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO)University of the AlgarveFaroPortugal
  5. 5.Axentiva Solutions S.L.TenerifeSpain

Personalised recommendations