Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to estimate Korean preference weights for EQ-5D-5L based on values elicited from Korean population by applying the EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) program and the standard protocol by the EuroQol Group.

Methods

The multistage quota sampling method was used to recruit 1085 subjects from the general population in Korea. Each respondent valuated 10 health states using the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and 7 health states using discrete choice experiment. The EQ-VT program was developed by the EuroQol Group and translated into Korean with the Korean research team. Computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews were conducted. A range of predictive models were explored using cTTO. The most appropriate model was determined after assessing goodness of fit, logical consistency, and parsimony.

Results

Of 3206 contacted, 1085 subjects completed interviews (33.8 %) and 1080 were used for modeling. A model with dummy variables for each level of severity and dimension and a term that picked up whether any dimension in the state was at level 4 or 5 was selected as the best predictive model. All coefficients of the final model were statistically significant and logically consistent. In addition, it was parsimonious. This model had mean absolute error of 0.027, and the absolute error for all 86 health states was below 0.1.

Conclusions

The final model built in this study appears to predict the utilities of the states which were valuated directly. This model could be used to interpolate quality weights for all EQ-5D-5L health states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15(2), 209–231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Norman, R., Cronin, P., Viney, R., King, M., Street, D., & Ratcliffe, J. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jo, M. W., Yun, S. C., & Lee, S. I. (2008). Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with the time trade-off method in South Korea. Value in Health, 11(7), 1186–1189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee, Y. K., Nam, H. S., Chuang, L. H., Kim, K. Y., Yang, H. K., Kwon, I. S., et al. (2009). South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: Modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value in Health, 12(8), 1187–1193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pickard, A. S., DeLeon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value in Health, 11(2), 275–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Reenen, M., & Janssen, B. (2015). EQ-5D-5L user guide basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument version 2.1. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf

  14. Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A programme of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Devlin, N. J., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2011). A uniform Time Trade Off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Economics, 20(3), 348–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramos-Goni, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabases, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2014). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283.

  17. Badia, X., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Social Science and Medicine, 49(7), 943–950.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lauridsen, J., & Pedersen, K. M. (2008). An assessment of inconsistencies in the valuation of hypothetical EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states. Health Economics Papers, 5, 1–24. http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles//Files/Om_SDU/Centre/c_ist_sundoke/Forskningsdokumenter/publications/Working%20papers/20085.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2015.

  21. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (Eds.). (2005). EQ-5D concepts and method. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Norman, R., Cronin, P., & Viney, R. (2013). A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11(3), 287–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was cofunded by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA-A-13-002), Republic of Korea and the EuroQol Group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, College of Health Science, Dankook University, Cheonan, South Korea

    Seon-Ha Kim & Min-Woo Jo

  2. Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, South Korea

    Jeonghoon Ahn, Sangjin Shin & Jooyeon Park

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympicro-43gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, South Korea

    Minsu Ock & Min-Woo Jo

  4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Nan Luo

Authors
  1. Seon-Ha Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeonghoon Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minsu Ock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sangjin Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jooyeon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Min-Woo Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min-Woo Jo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 65 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, SH., Ahn, J., Ock, M. et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res 25, 1845–1852 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation