Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 57–66 | Cite as

Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France

  • Julie ChevalierEmail author
  • Gérard de Pouvourville
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

While a French language version of the EQ-5D exists, to date, there has been no French value set to accompany it. The objective of our study was then to derive the French TTO value set of the EQ-5D.

Methods

A total of 452 respondents aged over 18 were recruited who were representative of the French population with regard to age, gender, and socio-professional group. The direct valuation of 24 health states was first obtained by Time Trade-Off (TTO), and the negative TTO values were bounded using the monotonic transformation. Several alternative model specifications were investigated to estimate the values for all 243 states in the EQ-5D descriptive system. Only the best fitting model is presented in this paper. The analysis was conducted at an individual level to make the maximum use of the available data, and we estimated mixed models with random intercept. Models were compared through the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed and the predicted values of each model.

Results

After exclusion, 443 respondents took part in the study. The best fitting model included the same variables as the N3-model used in UK.

Conclusion

This study provides the French value set of the EQ-5D based on the stated preferences of the French general public facilitating cost-effectiveness analysis.

Keywords

Health-related quality of life EQ-5D Utility Preferences 

JEL Classification

I19 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study was provided by a grant from the EuroQol Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and the ESSEC Chair of Health Economics and Management. We are grateful to the interviewers of TNS Healthcare for their help in data collection and our respondents for their participation. This study was not possible without the friendly and permanent support of Frank de Charro, exec director of EuroQol, and the guidance of the EUROQOL valuation task force, especially from Nancy Devlin, Paul Kind, Ben van Hout and David Parkin.

References

  1. 1.
    Brooks, R.: EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy 1, 53–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torrance, G.W., Boyle, M.H., Horwood, S.P.: Application of multi-attribute theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper. Res. 6, 1043–1069 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.D.: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 6, 473–483 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Le Galès, C., Buron, C., Costet, N., et al.: Développement d’un index d’états de santé pondéré par les utilités en population française: le health utilities index. Econ. Prev. 150, 71–87 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collège des Économistes de la Santé: Guide méthodologique pour l’évaluation économique des stratégies de santé. Recommandations méthodologiques. Paris (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haute Autorité de Santé: L’évaluation économique à la Haute Autorité de Santé Principes et méthodes. Paris (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adam, P., Herzlich, C.: Sociologie de la maladie et de la médecine. Armand Colin (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, J.A., Ohinmaa, A., Murti, B., et al.: Comparison of Finnish and U.S.-based visual analog scale valuations of the EQ-5D measure. Med. Decis. Making 20, 281–289 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, J.A., Luo, N., Shaw, J., et al.: Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med. Care 43, 221–228 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamers, L.M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P., et al.: The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 15, 1121–1132 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Niewada, M., et al.: Valuations of EQ-5D health states in Poland: first TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health 13, 289–297 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 11, 1095–1108 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macran, S., Kind, P.: Valuing EQ-5D health states using a modified MVH protocol: preliminary results. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M., Roset, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, pp. 205–240. Institut de Salut Publica de Catalunya (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., et al.: Estimating an EQ-5D population value-set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 4, 341–353 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parkin, D., Devlin, N., Sharma, P.: A deathless and VAS-free EQ-5D self-completion valuation questionnaire. In: Stavem, K. (ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, Oslo, pp. 170–189 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N.: EQ-5D value sets. Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamers, L.M.: The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value-sets. Med. Care 3, 238–244 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw, J.W., Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care 3, 203–220 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chuang, L.H., Kind, P.: The effect of health state selection on the valuation of EQ-5D. Med. Decis. Making 31, 186–194 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Brien, B.J., Drummond, M.F.: Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines. Pharmacoeconomics 5, 389–398 (1994)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devlin, N.J., Hansen, P., Kind, P., et al.: Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations—a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Econ. 7, 529–544 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Health Economics and ManagementESSEC Business SchoolCergy-Pontoise CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations