Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 2375–2381 | Cite as

A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA

  • Susan Clemens
  • Nelufa Begum
  • Catherine Harper
  • Jennifer A. Whitty
  • Paul A. Scuffham
Brief Communication



To provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3L by age and gender based on a representative adult sample in Queensland, Australia; to assess differences in health-related quality of life by applying the Australian, UK and USA value sets to these data; and to assess differences in utility scores for key preventive health indicators.


A cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interview survey (March–June 2011) with 5,555 adults. Respondents rated their impairment (none, moderate, severe problems) across five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety or depression) using the validated EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life instrument. Utility score indexes were derived using the Australian, UK and USA value sets.


Forty per cent of adults reported pain and discomfort while 3 % indicated problems with self-care. Approximately one in six had limitations with mobility, usual activities or anxiety or depression. The three value sets performed similarly in discriminating differences based on most characteristics, and clinically meaningful differences were seen for age, body weight, physical activity and daily smoking. There were no differences in utility scores for gender.


This is the first study to report general population findings for the Australian EQ-5D-3L value set. Overall, the Australian value set performed comparably with other value sets commonly used in the Australian population; however, differences were observed. Results will enable further refinement to health and economic studies in an Australian-specific context.


Quality of life Australia Population norms Utility weights 


  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.Google 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(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker and R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Kluver Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scuffham, P. A., et al. (2008). The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: A review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(4), 297–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Queensland Health. (2012). Queensland preventive health surveys. www.health.qld.gov.au/epidemiology/publications/phs-qld.asp. Accessed 02 Feb 2014.
  14. 14.
    Queensland Health. (2012). Self Reported Health Status 2011: Quality of life, mental health and wellbeing and associations with preventive health indicators, Queensland. www.health.qld.gov.au/epidemiology/documents/srhs11-mh.pdf. Accessed 02 Feb 2014.
  15. 15.
    Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Queensland Health. (2012). The health of Queenslanders 2012: advancing good health. Fourth report of the Chief Health Officer [internet]. Queensland Health: Brisbane. (Cited 2013 May 7).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Clemens
    • 1
  • Nelufa Begum
    • 1
  • Catherine Harper
    • 1
  • Jennifer A. Whitty
    • 2
  • Paul A. Scuffham
    • 2
  1. 1.Chief Health Officer BranchQueensland Government Department of HealthBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Health InstituteGriffith UniversityMeadowbrookAustralia

Personalised recommendations