Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Original Research Article

German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L

Authors: Kristina Ludwig, J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg, Wolfgang Greiner

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to develop a value set for EQ-5D-5L based on the societal preferences of the German population. As the first country to do so, the study design used the improved EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol 2.0 developed by the EuroQol Group, including a feedback module as internal validation and a quality control process that was missing in the first wave of EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.

Methods

A representative sample of the general German population (n = 1158) was interviewed using a composite time trade-off and a discrete choice experiment under close quality control. Econometric modeling was used to estimate values for all 3125 possible health states described by EQ-5D-5L. The value set was based on a hybrid model including all available information from the composite time trade-off and discrete choice experiment valuations without any exclusions due to data issues.

Results

The final German value set was constructed from a combination of a conditional logit model for the discrete choice experiment data and a censored at −1 Tobit model for the composite time trade-off data, correcting for heteroskedasticity. The value set had logically consistent parameter estimates (p < 0.001 for all coefficients). The predicted EQ-5D-5L index values ranged from −0.661 to 1.

Conclusions

This study provided values for the health states of the German version of EQ-5D-5L representing the preferences of the German population. The study successfully employed for the first time worldwide the improved protocol 2.0. The value set enables the use of the EQ-5D-5L instrument in economic evaluations and in clinical studies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Greiner W. Der EQ-5D der EuroQol-Gruppe. In: Schöffski O, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, editors. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. 4th ed. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 411–22.
2.
Devlin NJ, Krabbe PFM. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl. 1):1–3.CrossRefPubMedCentral
3.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
4.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1717–27.
5.
Pickard AS, de Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45:259–63.CrossRefPubMed
6.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.
7.
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–53.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, update and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. (Submitted).
10.
11.
12.
13.
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.
14.
Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20:348–61.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Janssen BMF, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl. 1):5–13.CrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2016;20:466–73.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lin HW, Li CI, Hsu CN, Tang CH. Does time of full health in worse-than-death (WTD) tasks matter? Noordwijk; 2nd EuroQol Academy Meeting. Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–8 March, 2017; 2017.
18.
19.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2014;55:51–8.
20.
21.
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics using Stata. Revised ed. College Station (TX): Stata Press; 2010.
22.
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJV, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:124–30.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.
25.
Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11:447–56.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Alemu MH, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB, Jensen CL. Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Environ Resource Econ. 2013;54:333–59.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L
Authors
Kristina Ludwig
J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
Wolfgang Greiner
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

PharmacoEconomics 6/2018 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Commentary

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

Commentary

3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum

Original Research Article

Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries

Original Research Article

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Correction

Correction to: 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum