Abstract
Purpose
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
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.
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.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.
Feeny, D., et al. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.
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.
Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.
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.
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.
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.
Viney, R., et al. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.
Norman, R., et al. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200.
Queensland Health. (2012). Queensland preventive health surveys. www.health.qld.gov.au/epidemiology/publications/phs-qld.asp. Accessed 02 Feb 2014.
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.
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.
Sørensen, J., et al. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.
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.
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).
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.
Baxter, J., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2011). Families in regional, rural and remote Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census 2011 TableBuilder Basic, Release 3. Canberra: Australia. (Cited 2013 8 May).
Acknowledgments
JW is supported by a Smart Futures Research Fellowship funded by the Queensland Government Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Health and Griffith University. This study was approved by the Queensland Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/10/QHC/49).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C. et al. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Qual Life Res 23, 2375–2381 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x