International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

A Comparison of Iran and UK EQ-5D-3L Value Sets Based on Visual Analogue Scale

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Aliasghar A. Kiadaliri 1, 2
1 Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences-Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
2 Health Services Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
10.15171/ijhpm.2016.131
Abstract
Background
Preference weights for EQ-5D-3L based on visual analogue scale (VAS) has recently been developed in Iran. The aim of the current study was to compare performance of this value set against the UK VAS-based value set.
 
Methods
The mean scores for all possible 243 health states were compared using Student t test. Absolute agreement and consistency were investigated using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plot. Health gains for 29 403 possible transitions between pairs of EQ-5D-3L health states were compared. Responsiveness to change and discriminative ability across subgroups of health transitions were assessed.
 
Results
The mean EQ-5D-3L scores were similar for two value sets (mean = 0.31, P = 1.00). For 36% of health states, the absolute differences were greater than 0.10. There were three pairwise logical inconsistencies in the Iranian value set. The Iranian scores were lower (higher) for severe (mild) health states than the United Kingdom. The CCC (95% CI) was 0.85 (0.81 to 0.88) and Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement. The mean health gain for all possible transitions predicted by the Iranian value set was higher (0.22 vs. 0.20, P < .001) and two value sets predicted opposite transitions in 15% of transitions. The responsiveness of these two value sets were similar with lower discriminative ability for Iranian value set.
 
Conclusion
The Iranian value set attribute lower values to most severe health states and higher values to mild health states compared with the UK value set. Such systematic differences might translate into discrepant health gains and cost-effectiveness which should be taking into account for informed decision-making.
Keywords
EQ-5D-3L
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Iran
UK
Subjects
  1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53-72.
  2. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1-30.
  3. Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005-1013. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x
  4. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
  5. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9):i-iv.
  6. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-1108.
  7. Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, Kind P, Coons SJ. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care. 2005;43(3):221-228.
  8. Bailey H, Kind P. Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1145-1154. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9678-5
  9. Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, et al. Comparison of population health status in six european countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care. 2009;47(2):255-261. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318184759e
  10. Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, Severens JL, Ament AJ. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767-779. doi:10.2165/11314120-000000000-00000
  11. Matter-Walstra K, Klingbiel D, Szucs T, Pestalozzi BC, Schwenkglenks M. Using the EuroQol EQ-5D in Swiss cancer patients, which value set should be applied? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(6):591-599. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0151-0
  12. Goudarzi R, Zeraati H, Sari A, Rashidian A, Mohammad K. Population-Based Preference Weights for the EQ-5D Health States Using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in Iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18(2):e21584.
  13. MVH Group. The Measurement and Valuation of Health. Final report on the modeling of valuation tariffs. UK: York Centre for Health Economics; 1995.
  14. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310.
  15. Lin LI. Concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268.
  16. Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(4):609-615.
  17. Nan L, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Coons SJ. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(3):321-326. doi:10.1177/0272989X07300603
  18. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. USA: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
  19. Kiadaliri AA, Eliasson B, Gerdtham UG. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:145. doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0344-z
  20. Jurges H. True health vs response styles: exploring cross-country differences in self-reported health. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):163-178. doi:10.1002/hec.1134
  21. Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. The implications of using US-specific EQ-5D preference weights for cost-effectiveness evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(3):327-334. doi:10.1177/0272989X07301822
  22. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):8-20. doi:10.1177/0272989X13480852
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 6, Issue 5
2017
Pages 267-272

  • Received Date 20 March 2016
  • Revised Date 15 September 2016
  • Accepted Date 25 September 2016
  • First Published Date 01 May 2017
  • Published Date 01 May 2017