Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?
The aim of this study was to test whether the ordering of item labels in EQ-5D instruments disagrees with the preferences of US adults.
A preference inversion occurs when “worse” health along a scale or score is preferred. As a sub-study of the 2013 United States Measurement and Valuation of Health Study, we tested for 33 EQ-5D preference inversions using paired comparisons with unique samples of 50 or more US adults, aged 18 or older. Specifically, we tested whether health preferences contradicted ordering of EQ-5D labels.
The EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y item labels had no significant preference inversions. The EQ-5D-5L version had preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5. For example, 30 out of 59 respondents (51 %) preferred being “extremely” over “severely anxious or depressed,” contrary to the ordering of labels for that item.
Preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5 on the EQ-5D-5L were tested and confirmed; therefore, valuation studies may find that Levels 4 and 5 have the same value. To mitigate such inversions, labels could be revised or a 4-level version could be considered.
KeywordsEQ-5D QALY Health preferences Psychometrics Item response Scales
The authors thank Michelle Owens, Shannon Runge, and Carol Templeton at Moffitt Cancer Center for their contributions to the research and creation of this paper. Financial support for this study was provided by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, through the National Cancer Institute (1R01CA160104), the EuroQol Group (EQ Project 2013100) and Dr. Craig’s support account at Moffitt Cancer Center. The funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
- 4.Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99.Google Scholar
- 6.Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., & Johnson, J. A. (2013). The Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study: An exploratory analysis, Table 1.4, 30th Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Montreal: EuroQol Group.Google Scholar
- 7.Craig, B., & Reeve, B. (2012). Patient-reported outcomes and preference research: Igniting the candle at both ends and the middle. ISPOR Connections Uniting Research and Practice, 18(5), 24.Google Scholar
- 12.Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727.Google Scholar
- 15.Craig, B. M., Schell, M. J., Brown, P. M., Reeve, B. B., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Lipscomb, J., Pickard, A. S., & Revicki, D. A. (2011). HRQoL values for cancer survivors: Enhancing PROMIS measures for CER (Vol. $3,978,708, p. 89). H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center: NIH.Google Scholar
- 16.Craig, B., & Reeve, B. (2012). Methods report on the PROMIS valuation study: Year 1. Moffitt Cancer Center. http://labpages.moffitt.org/craigb/Publications/Report120928.pdf.