Advertisement

Descriptive System

  • Richard Brooks
Chapter

Abstract

Chapter 2 provided an overview of the developmental years of the EuroQol system. This chapter focuses more closely on how the descriptive system was established, and traces work accomplished on the system over the years through to the major developments of recent years. At the time of the first meeting in Rotterdam in 1987, a considerable number of generic or multi-attribute health status measures had been developed. Very few of these provided a single number index, a major exception being the Quality of Well-being (QWB) measure of the early 1970s (Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M, Health Serv Res, 8:228–245, 1973). Indeed the focus had been on comprehensive coverage in the form of health profiles, e.g. the 130-item Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) (Bergner M, Bobitt R, Kressel S, Pollard W, Gilson B, Morris J, Int J Health Serv, 6:393–415, 1976). As noted in Chap. 2 this emphasis was precisely because measure developers wished to provide detailed profiles of peoples’ health. From the outset the developers of the EuroQol measure wished to have an index of health status, i.e. to place values on health status. This would enable in principle and, it turned out in practice, a range of possible uses and applications of the instrument.

Keywords

Task Force Descriptive System Executive Committee Sickness Impact Profile Liaison Officer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergner M, Bobitt R, Kressel S, Pollard W, Gilson B, Morris J. The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. International Journal of Health Services 1976; 6:393–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Kluwer. 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Bryan S, Jowett S, Hardyman W, Bentham P. Does the EQ-5D “anxiety/depression” item measure anxiety, depression, both or neither? In Pickard (2004).Google Scholar
  4. Cabasés J and Sanchez E. Valuation of 5-level states and back-compatibility with existing 3-level valuation sets: a Bayesian approach. In Stavem (2005).Google Scholar
  5. Chevalier J and de Pouvourville G. Testing of a new 5 level version of the EQ-5D in France. In Scalone and Mantovani (2008).Google Scholar
  6. Devlin N, Hansen P, Selai C. Respondents’ perception of an EQ-5D valuation questionnaire: insights from a self-completed VAS survey. In Norinder et al (2002a).Google Scholar
  7. Devlin N, Hansen P, Macran S. A “new and improved” EQ-5D valuation questionnaire?: Results from a pilot study. In Kind and Macran (2002b).Google Scholar
  8. Fox-Rushby J. First steps to assessing semantic equivalence of EQ-5D: Results of a questionnaire survey to members of the EuroQol Group. In Nord (1997)Google Scholar
  9. Golicki D, Zawodnik S, Janssen M, Kiljan A, Hermanowski T. Psychometric comparison of EQ-5D and EQ-5D-5L in student population. In Yfantopoulos (2010).Google Scholar
  10. Gu NY, Craig B, Doctor J. Evaluating EQ-5D items using the Rasch Models in a U.S. representative sample. In Scalone and Mantovani (2008).Google Scholar
  11. Gudex C. Are we lacking a dimension of energy in the EuroQol Instrument? In Björk (1992).Google Scholar
  12. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research 2011; 20:1727–1736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herdman M, Kind P. Chevalier J, Gudex C, de Pourvourville G. Investigation of labels for additional EQ-5D levels: Results of main study + 1. In Busschbach et al (2007).Google Scholar
  14. Herdman M, Sanz L, Lloyd A, Badia X, Gudex, C. Qualitative testing of two new 5-level versions of the EQ-5D in Spain: Preliminary study results. In Scalone and Mantovani (2008).Google Scholar
  15. Hunt S and McEwen J. The development of a subjective health indicator. Social Health and Illness 1980; 2:231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssen M and Bonsel G. Towards a HUI-fication of the EQ descriptive system: should the EQ descriptive system be extended from three to five levels? A universal modelling strategy with an empirical pilot. In Pickard (2004).Google Scholar
  17. Janssen M, Haagsma J, Bonsel G. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three level system with a five level version. In Stavem (2005).Google Scholar
  18. Janssen M, Birnie E, Bonsel G. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three level system and a five level version according to 2 methods. Quality of Life Research 2008a;17:463–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janssen M, Birnie E, Bonsel G. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three level system and a five level version according to 2 methods. In Badia (2007).Google Scholar
  20. Janssen M, Birnie E, Haagsma J, Bonsel G. Comparing the standard EQ–5D three level system with a five level version. Value in Health. 2008b;11:275–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kind P. Foreword. In Kind P et al (2005a).Google Scholar
  22. Kind P. Valuing health benefits using EQ-5D: the W Lothian question. In Stavem (2005b).Google Scholar
  23. Kind P and Gudex C. Measuring health status in the community: a comparison of methods. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1991; 48:86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kind P and Macran S. (Eds.) 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers, York, UK, September 2002. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2002a.Google Scholar
  25. Kind P and Macran S. Levelling the playing field: increasing the number of response categories in EQ-5D. In Kind and Macran, 2002b.Google Scholar
  26. Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R (Eds.) EQ-5D Concepts and Methods. Kluwer, 2005c.Google Scholar
  27. Krabbe P, Stouthard M, Esssink-Bot M-L, Bonsel G. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multi-attribute health status classification system. In Rabin et al, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. Krabbe P, Stouthard M, Esssink-Bot M-L, Bonsel G. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multi-attribute health status classification system. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999; 52:293–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamers L. Adjustment of EQ-5D TTO valuation sets for use of an EQ-5D five level descriptive system: a pragmatic approach. In Stavem (2005).Google Scholar
  30. Lloyd A and Quadri N. Testing alternative labels for a UK English five level version of EQ-5D. In Scalone and Mantovani (2008).Google Scholar
  31. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Rousculp M, Secnik-Boye K. Rich versus simple descriptive systems: does it make any difference? In Busschbach et al (2007).Google Scholar
  32. Luo N, Li M, Liu G, Lloyd A, de Charro F, Herdman M. Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: the response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  33. Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Services Research 1973; 8:228–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickard AS, De Leon M, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5-level version in cancer patients. In Badia (2007a).Google Scholar
  35. Pickard AS, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S, Bonsel G, Janssen M. A crosswalk for a 5 level version of EQ-5D. Come together: use of IRT models to derive preference-based algorithms for a 5 level version. In Badia (2007c).Google Scholar
  36. Pickard AS, Wilke C, Hsiang-Wen L, Lloyd A. Impact of cancer on health related quality of life: evidence using the EQ-5D. In Badia et al (2007c).Google Scholar
  37. Rosser R and Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology 1978; 7:347–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Gaeta L, Del Prete A, Magini G, Baldan A, Mantovani L. Comparing the standard EQ-5D-3L versus 5L version for the assessment of health of patients with liver diseases. In Yfantopoulos (2010).Google Scholar
  39. Selai C. Four levels and a funeral: preliminary testing of a four-level EuroQol descriptive classification system. In Badia et al (1996).Google Scholar
  40. Selai C. Testing the EuroQol 3-level and 4-level descriptive classification systems. In Nord (1997).Google Scholar
  41. Sintonen H. An approach to measuring and valuing health states. Social Science and Medicine 1981; 15c: 55–65.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson S, Holtzer-Goor K, Schaafsma R, Uyl-de Groot C. Use of a 5-level EQ-5D instrument without additional labels in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. In Badia (2007).Google Scholar
  43. van Agt H and Bonsel G. The number of levels in the descriptive system. In Busschbach et al (1994).Google Scholar
  44. van Dalen H, Williams A, Gudex C. Lay people’s evaluation of health: are there variations between different subgroups? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1994; 48:248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Brooks
    • 1
  1. 1.EuroQol GroupRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations