The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 197–209 | Cite as

The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries

  • Raymond Oppong
  • Billingsley Kaambwa
  • Jacqueline Nuttall
  • Kerenza Hood
  • Richard D. Smith
  • Joanna Coast
Original Paper


When using the EQ-5D in European cross-national studies, there is no consensus over whether the European value set (EVS), country specific value sets (CVS) or UK value set (UKVS) should be used. Data on health outcomes were collected in 7 countries. EQ-5D index scores were generated for each country using all three value sets. QALYs gained over 4 weeks based on EQ-5D scores were also generated in order to investigate the implications for cost-utility analysis. EQ-5D scores obtained using the EVS were similar to values obtained using the CVS and UKVS in all countries. CVS-based EQ-5D scores were on average associated with a smaller baseline-to-week 4 change/improvement in all countries (except in Wales and Belgium) while UKVS-based EQ-5D scores showed the largest improvement over the same period for every country. With regards to cost-utility analysis, the results suggest that in most countries (with the exception of Belgium and Finland), using different tariffs to value EQ-5D would not have made a difference to the decisions based on the results of cost-utility analysis.


EQ-5D Value sets Lower respiratory tract infections Cost-effectiveness 

JEL Classification



  1. 1.
    The EuroQol Group: EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(4), 410 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kind, P.: Guidelines for value sets in economic and non-economic studies using EQ-5D. In: The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Evidence From the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo, N., Johnson, J.A., Shaw, J.W., Coons, S.J.: A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med. Decis. Mak. 27(3), 321 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., et al.: Use of quality adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. 22(2), 235–241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, I.C., Willke, R.J., Atkinson, M.J., Lenderking, W.R., Frangakis, C., Wu, A.W.: US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference? Qual. Life Res. 16(6), 1065–1072 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sakthong, P., Charoenvisuthiwongs, R., Shabunthom, R.: A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 6(1), 71 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095–1108 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devlin, N., 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. 20(3), 348–361 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohinmaa, A., Eija, H., Sintonen, H.: Modelling EuroQol values of finnish adult population. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M., Segura, A. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting Barcelona 1995, pp. 67–76. Discussion Papers. Institut Universitari de Salut Publica de Catalunya (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ohinmaa, A., Sintonen, H.: Inconsistencies and modelling of the finish EuroQol (EQ-5D) preference values. In: Greiner, W., Graf, J.-M., Schulenburg, V.D., Piercy, J. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, 1–2 October 1998, pp. 57–74. Discussion papers. Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research, University of Hannover, Germany. Uni-verlag Witte (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J.J.V., Graf von der Schulenburg, J.: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6(2), 124–130 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamers, L.M., McDonnella, J., Stalmeierb, P.F.M., Krabbeb, P.F.M., Busschbachd, J.J.V.: The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 15, 1121–1132 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., Kind, P.: A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med. Decis. Mak. 21(1), 7 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cleemput, I.: A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(2), 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oppe, M., Szende, A., de Charro, F.: Comparative review of visual analogue scale value sets. In: Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N. (eds.) EQ-5D value sets inventory review and user guide. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szende, A., Oppe, M., de Charro, F.: Comparative review of time trade-off value sets. In: Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N. (eds.) EQ-5D value sets inventory review and user guide. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greiner, W., Weijnen, T., Nieuwenhuizen, M., Oppe, S., Badia, X., Busschbach, J., Buxton, M., Dolan, P., Kind, P., Krabbe, P.: A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Eur. J. Health Econ. 4(3), 222–231 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernert, S., Fernandez, A., Haro, J.M., König, H.H., Alonso, J., Vilagut, G., Sevilla-Dedieu, C., De Graaf, R., et al.: Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries. Value Health 12(5), 750–758 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parkin, D., Rice, N., Devlin, N.: Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference? Med. Decis. Mak. 0272989X09357473v1 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allin, D., James, I., Zachariah, J., Carr, W., Cullen, S., Middleton, A., Newson, P., Lytle, T., Coles, S.: Comparison of once-and twice-daily clarithromycin in the treatment of adults with severe acute lower respiratory tract infections. Clin. Ther. 23(12), 1958–1968 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oppong, R., Kaambwa, B., Nuttall, J., Hood, K., Smith, R.D., Coast, J.: Assessment of the construct validity of the EQ-5D in patients with acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections. Appl. Res. Qual. Life (2011). doi:10.1007/s11482-011-9137-7
  24. 24.
    Butler, C.C., Hood, K., Verheij, T., Little, P., Melbye, H., Nuttall, J., Kelly, M.J., Molstad, S., Godycki-Cwirko, M., Almirall, J., Torres, A., Gillespie, D., Rautakorpi, U., Coenen, S., Gossens, H.: Variation in antibiotic prescribing and its impact on recovery in patients with acute cough in primary care: prospective study in 13 countries. BMJ 338, b2242 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oppong, R., Coast, J., Hood, K., Nuttall, J., Smith, R.D., Butler, C.C.: Resource use and costs of treating acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in 13 European countries: results and challenges. Eur. J. Health Econ. 12(5), 1–11Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ott, L., Longnecker, M.: An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis sixth edition. Duxbury press (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Streiner, D.L., Norman, G.R. Health measurement scales. In: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morris, S., Devlin, N., Parkin, D.: Economic Analysis in Health Care. Wiley, Chichester (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Appleby, J., Devlin, N., Parkin, D.: NICE’s cost effectiveness threshold. Br. Med. J. 335(7616), 358 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zwart-van Rijkom, J.E.F., Leufkens, H.G.M., Busschbach, J.J.V., Broekmans, A.W., Rutten, F.F.H.: Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in the Netherlands: the Dutch results from the EUROMET project. Pharmacoeconomics 18(2), 149–160 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jit et al.: The cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination. A comparative analysis for five European countries and transferability in Europe. Vaccine 27(44): 6121–6128 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ström, O., Borgström, F., Sen, S.S., Boonen, S., Haentjens, P., Johnell, O., Kanis, J.A.: Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries-an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial. Osteoporos. Int. 18(8), 1047–1061 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hutubessy, R., Chisholm, D., Edejer, T.: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Effect. Res. Allocat. 1(1), 8 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan-Torres, T.: Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. World Health Organisation, Geneva (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    WHO: Macroeconomics and health: Investing in health for economic development. (2001). Accessed 29 April 2010
  36. 36.
    Husted, J.A., Cook, R.J., Farewell, V.T., Gladman, D.D.: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53(5), 459–468 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goldsmith, K.A., et al.: Relationship between the EQ-5D index and measures of clinical outcomes in selected studies of cardiovascular interventions. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 96 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson, J.A., Luo, N., Shaw, J.W., Kind, P., Coons, S.J.: Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med. Care 43(3), 221 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., Beaton, D.: Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 46(12), 1417–1432 (1993)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Knies, S., Evers, S.M.M.A., Candel, M.J.J.M., Severens, J.L., Ament, A.J.H.A.: Utilities of the EQ-5D transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics 27(9), 767–779 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Devlin, N., Parkin, D.: Guidance to users of EQ-5D value sets. In: Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N. (eds.) EQ-5D value sets inventory review and user guide. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    King, J.T., Tsevat, J., Lave, J.R., Roberts, M.S.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med. Decis. Mak. 25, 667–677 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Oppong
    • 1
  • Billingsley Kaambwa
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Nuttall
    • 2
  • Kerenza Hood
    • 2
  • Richard D. Smith
    • 3
  • Joanna Coast
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Economics UnitSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.South East Wales Trials Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public HealthSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University Neuadd MerionnyddCardiffUK
  3. 3.Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations