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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2016

Open Access 01-10-2016 | Practical Application

EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes

Authors: Mark Oppe, Kim Rand-Hendriksen, Koonal Shah, Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi, Nan Luo

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The time trade-off (TTO) valuation technique is widely used to determine utility values of health outcomes to inform quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculations for use in economic evaluation. Protocols for implementing TTO vary in aspects such as the trade-off framework, iteration procedure and its administration model and method, training of respondents and interviewers, and quality control of data collection. The most widely studied and utilized TTO valuation protocols are the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) protocol, the Paris protocol and the EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) protocol, all developed by members of the EuroQol Group. The MVH protocol and its successor, the Paris protocol, were developed for valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states. Both protocols were designed for a trained interviewer to elicit preferences from a respondent using the conventional TTO framework with a fixed time horizon of 10 years and an iteration procedure combining bisection and titration. Developed for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states, the EQ-VT protocol adopted a composite TTO framework and made use of computer technology to facilitate data collection. Training and monitoring of interviewers and respondents is a pivotal component of the EQ-VT protocol. Research is underway aiming to further improve the EuroQol protocols, which form an important basis for the current practice of health technology assessment in many countries.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
2.
Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res. 1980;28:206–24.CrossRef
3.
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7(2):118–33.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155–75.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1):76–83.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2005;14(1):39–53.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
9.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
10.
11.
12.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Discussion paper 136. York: Center for Health Economics, The University of York; 1995.
14.
Kind P. A revised protocol for the valuation of health states defined by the EQ-5D-3L classification system: learning the lessons from the MVH study. York: Centre for Health Economics, The University of York; 2009.
15.
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393–402.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14(1):9–18.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45(3):238–44.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Shaw JW, Pickard AS, Yu S, Chen S, Iannacchione VG, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. A median model for predicting United States population-based EQ-5D health state preferences. Value Health. 2010;13(2):278–88.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Craig BM, Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):169–74.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Augestad LA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Kristiansen IS, Stavem K. Impact of transformation of negative values and regression models on differences between the UK and US EQ-5D time trade-off value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(12):1203–14.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Tilling C, Wilkinson G, van Hout B. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517–32.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference? Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S25–31.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Janssen BM, 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):S5–13.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Luo N, Li M, Stolk EA, Devlin NJ. The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S15–24.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Versteegh MM, Attema AE, Oppe M, Devlin NJ, Stolk EA. Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S43–51.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Shah KK, Lloyd A, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S65–73.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(7):943–50.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(2):173–81.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Stalmeier PF, Busschbach JJ, Lamers LM, Krabbe PF. The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead. Health Econ. 2005;14(7):679–85.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D Value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.CrossRef
36.
Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1187–93.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, Gao C, Luo N. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2014;17(5):597–604.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Chevalier J, de Pouvourville G. Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(1):57–66.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Oppe M. The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):413–23.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Menezes RM, Andrade MV, Noronha KV, Kind P. EQ-5D-3L as a health measure of Brazilian adult population. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(11):2761–76.CrossRef
41.
Devlin N, Krabbe P. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S1–3.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Shah K, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. An empirical study of two alternative comparators for use in time-trade off studies. Value Health. 2016;19(1):53–9.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modelling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2014 (Epub ahead of print).
44.
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):1005–13.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Dolan P, Gudex C. Time preference, duration and health state valuations. Health Econ. 1995;4(4):289–99.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38(3):189–203.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Boye KS, Matza LS, Feeny DH, Johnston JA, Bowman L, Jordan JB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):437–50.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Stalmeier PF, Chapman GB, de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ. A fallacy of the multiplicative QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(4):488–96.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes
Authors
Mark Oppe
Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Koonal Shah
Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi
Nan Luo
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

PharmacoEconomics 10/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3

Commentary

Performance-Based Agreements in Italy: ‘Trendy Outcomes’ or Mere Illusions?

Review Article

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

Review Article

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

Original Research Article

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Original Research Article

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles