Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2018

01.06.2018 | Commentary

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

verfasst von: Jeff Round

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 6/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

The Euro-Qol group introduced the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system in 2009 [1], with the first publication describing the tool appearing in 2011 [2]. This revised version of the EQ-5D instrument introduced five response levels, alongside changes to the wording used to describe responses in the mobility domain. The five-level version of the EQ-5D descriptive system was developed in response to perceived failings of the three response-level EQ-5D-3L, notably in its sensitivity to changes in health [3], but also ceiling effects [2] and an ‘uneven’ distribution of responses as measured by the valuation tariff [4]. …
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
4.
Devlin NJ, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Brazier J, Briggs A, Bryan S. EQ-5D-5L: Smaller steps but a major step change? Health Econ. 2018;27(1):4–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hernandez Alava M, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56.CrossRefPubMed
7.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set. London: NICE; 2017.
8.
9.
Konerding U, et al. The validity of the EQ-5D-3L items: an investigation with type 2 diabetes patients from six European countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Jensen-Dahm C, et al. Discrepancy between self- and proxy-rated pain in Alzheimer’s disease: results from the Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(7):1274–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ramakers GG, et al. Agreement between health utility instruments in cochlear implantation. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(6):737–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Dickerson JF, et al. Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Qual Life Res. 2017.
13.
Janssen MF, 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(7):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brazier J, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):vii–viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188.CrossRef
15.
Mulhern B, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Noyes J, Edwards RT. EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1117–29.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Bailey C, et al. ‘The ICECAP-SCM tells you more about what I’m going through’: A think-aloud study measuring quality of life among patients receiving supportive and palliative care. Palliat Med. 2016;30(7):642–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Brazier JE, et al. First validation of the short recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measure. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:96.
19.
Stevens K. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):157–69.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Huynh E, et al. Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life. Soc Sci Med. 2017;189:114–28.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2004. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
23.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008.
24.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Dolan P, Layard R, Metcalfe R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing for Public Policy: Recommendations on Measures. 2011.
26.
27.
McCrone P, et al. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009;12(1):27–31.PubMed
28.
Sayah FA, et al. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057–66.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Patel AR, et al. The validity of the SF-12 and SF-6D instruments in people living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Dritsaki M, et al. An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Metadaten
Titel
Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L
verfasst von
Jeff Round
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2018
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2018

PharmacoEconomics 6/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Correction

Correction to: 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

Correction

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

Original Research Article

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

Original Research Article

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

Original Research Article

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