Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 413–423 | Cite as

The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal

  • Lara N. Ferreira
  • Pedro L. Ferreira
  • Luis N. Pereira
  • Mark Oppe



The EQ-5D is a preference-based measure widely used in cost-utility analysis (CUA). Several countries have conducted surveys to derive value sets, but this was not the case for Portugal. The purpose of this study was to estimate a value set for the EQ-5D for Portugal using the time trade-off (TTO).


A representative sample of the Portuguese general population (n = 450) stratified by age and gender valued 24 health states. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by trained interviewers. Each respondent ranked and valued seven health states using the TTO. Several models were estimated at both the individual and aggregated levels to predict health state valuations. Alternative functional forms were considered to account for the skewed distribution of these valuations.


The models were analyzed in terms of their coefficients, overall fit and the ability for predicting the TTO values. Random effects models were estimated using generalized least squares and were robust across model specification. The results are generally consistent with other value sets.


This research provides the Portuguese EQ-5D value set based on the preferences of the Portuguese general population as measured by the TTO. This value set is recommended for use in CUA conducted in Portugal.


EQ-5D Health-related quality of life QALYs TTO Utility Value set 



We thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions which have considerably improved an earlier version of the article. We acknowledge financial support from the (former) Office of the High Commissioner for Health, Portugal, to conduct the EQ-5D valuation study. We also thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) for financing our research centres.

Supplementary material

11136_2013_448_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
11136_2013_448_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 13 kb)


  1. 1.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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, 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torrance, G., Boyle, M., & Horwood, S. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 30(6), 1043–1069.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferreira, L., & Ferreira, P. (2013). Health state values, methods, Portugal and the UK. In A. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life research. Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Charro, F. d. (2007). Comparative review of time trade-off value sets. In A. Szende, M. Oppe, & N. Devlin (Eds.), EQ-5D value setsinventory, comparative review and user guide (vol. 2, pp. 21–28): EuroQol Group Monographs.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cleemput, I. (2010). A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. The European Journal Health Economics, 11, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wittrup-Jensen, K., Lauridsen, J., Gudex, C., & Pedersen, K. (2009). Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 459–466. doi: 10.1177/1403494809105287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J., & Schulenburg, J.-M. (2005). Validating the EQ-5D with time trade-off for the German population. The European Journal of Health Economics, 6, 124–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohinmaa, A., Eija, H., & Sintonen, H. Modelling Euro-Qol values of Finnish adult population. In X. Badia, M. Herdman, & A. Segura (Eds.), EuroQol 1995 Barcelona plenary meeting, Barcelona, 36 October 1996 (pp. 67–76): Institut de Salut Pública de Catalunya.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chevalier, J., & Pouvourville, G. (2012). Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. The European Journal Health Economics, doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0351-x.
  15. 15.
    Lamers, L., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P., Krabbe, P., & Busschbach, J. (2006). The Dutch tariff: Results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics, 15(10), 1121–1132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Niewada, M., Wrona, W., & Busschbach, J. (2010). Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: First TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value in Health, 13(2), 289–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rupel, V., & Ogorevc, M. (2012). The EQ-5D health states value set for Slovenia. Slovenian Journal of Public Health, 51(2), 128–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P. (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 7–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Augustovski, F. A., Irazola, V. E., Velasquez, A. P., Gibbons, L., & Craig, B. M. (2009). Argentin valuation of the EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 12(4), 587–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M. T., Cronin, P., Street, D. J., Knox, S., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Anis, A. (2012). Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: Preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e31115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031115.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Devlin, N., Hansen, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (2003). Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations - a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Economics, 12(7), 529–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tongsiri, S., & Cairns, J. (2011). Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value in Health, 14(8), 1142–1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaw, J., Johnson, J., & Coons, S. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 model. Medical Care, 43, 203–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jelsma, J., Hansen, K., Weerdt, W., Cock, P., & Kind, P. (2003). How do Zimbabweans value health states? Population Health Metrics, 7, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greiner, W., Weijnen, T., Nieuwenhuizen, M., Oppe, S., Badia, X., Busschbach, J., et al. (2003). A single European currency for EQ-5D health states: Results from a six-country study. The European Journal of Health Economics, 4, 222–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silva, E., Gouveia Pinto, C., Sampaio, C., Pereira, J., Drummond, M., & Trindade, R. (1998). Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies. Lisbon: INFARMED.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Portuguese Statistical Office (2012). Census 2011.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 16, 736–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2005). EQ-5D Health State Valuation Survey Conducted by Research Triangle Institute on Behalf of the University of Arizona Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research-Interviewer Book. Accessed 27 Dec 2011.
  32. 32.
    Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics, 18, 363–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zarate, V., Kind, P., & Chuang, L.-H. (2008). Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: A social value set for Latin Americans. Value in Health, 11(7), 1170–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bernert, S., Fernández, A., Haro, J., König, H–. H., Alonso, J., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries. Value in Health, 12(5), 750–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lara N. Ferreira
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pedro L. Ferreira
    • 2
    • 3
  • Luis N. Pereira
    • 1
    • 4
  • Mark Oppe
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Management, Hospitality and TourismUniversity of the AlgarveFaroPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Centre for Health Studies & ResearchUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational DynamicsUniversity of the AlgarveFaroPortugal
  5. 5.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations