EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future

Over the period 1987-1991 an inter-disciplinary five-country group developed the EuroQol instrument, a five-dimensional three-level generic measure subsequently termed the 'EQ-5D'. It was designed to measure and value health status. The salient features of its development and its consolidation and expansion are discussed. Initial expansion came, in particular, in the form of new language versions. Their development raised translation and semantic issues, experience with which helped feed into the design of two further instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the youth version EQ-5D-Y. The expanded usage across clinical programmes, disease and condition areas, population surveys, patient-reported outcomes, and value sets is outlined. Valuation has been of continued relevance for the Group as this has allowed its instruments to be utilised as part of the economic appraisal of health programmes and their incorporation into health technology assessments. The future of the Group is considered in the context of: (1) its scientific strategy, (2) changes in the external environment affecting the demand for EQ-5D, and (3) a variety of issues it is facing in the context of the design of the instrument, its use in health technology assessment, and potential new uses for EQ-5D outside of clinical trials and technology appraisal

The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework

__Abstract__ __Background__ The effect of lead time in time trade-off (TTO) valuation is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on health-state valuation of the length of lead time and the way the lead-time TTO task is displayed visually. __Methods__ Using two general population samples, we compared three lead-time TTO variants: 10 years of lead time in full health preceding 5 years of unhealthy time (standard); 5 years of lead time preceding 5 years of unhealthy time (experimental); and 10 years of lead time and 5 years of unhealthy time, presented with a visual aid to highlight the point where the lead time ends (experimental). Participants were randomized to receive one of the lead-time variants, as administered by a computer software program. __Results__ Health-state values generated by TTO valuation tasks using a longer lead time were slightly lower than those generated by tasks using a shorter lead time. When lead time and unhealthy time were presented with visual aids highlighting the difference between the lead time and unhealthy time, respondents spent more time considering health states with a value close to 0. __Conclusions__ Different lead-time time trade-off variants should be carefully studied in order to achieve the best measurement of health-state values using this new method

Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO

Abstract This article examines the effect that different specifications of the time trade-off (TTO) valuation task may have on values for EQ-5D-5L health states. The new variants of the TTO, namely lead-time TTO and lag-time TTO, along with the classic approach to TTO were compared using two durations for the health states (15 and 20 years). The study tested whether these methods yield comparable health-state values. TTO tasks were administered online. It was found that lag-time TTO produced lower values than lead-time TTO and that the difference was larger in the longer time frame. Classic TTO values most resembled those of the lag-time TTO in a 20-year time frame in terms of mean absolute difference. The relative importance of different domains of health was systematically affected by the duration of the health state. In the tasks with a 10-year health-state duration, anxiety/ depression had the largest negative impact on health-state values; in the tasks with a 5-year duration, the pain/discomfort domain had the largest negative impact

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics:Literature review and novel conceptual framework

Background: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. Methods: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. Results: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. Conclusions: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE. (C) 2022 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics:Country analysis and priority value concepts

Background: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. Methods: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. Results: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). Conclusions: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view. (C) 2022 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Using Age-Specific Values for Pediatric HRQoL in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis : Is There a Problem to Be Solved? If So, How?

Value sets for the EQ-5D-Y-3L published to date appear to have distinctive characteristics compared with value sets for corresponding adult instruments: in many cases, the value for the worst health state is higher and there are fewer values < 0. The aim of this paper is to consider how and why values for child and adult health differ; and what the implications of that are for the use of EQ-5D-Y-3L values in economic evaluations to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. We posit four potential explanations for the differences in values: (a) The wording of severity labels may mean the worst problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L are descriptively less severe than those on the EQ-5D-5L; (b) Adults may genuinely consider that children are less badly affected than adults by descriptively similar health issues. That is, for any given health problem, adult respondents in valuation studies consider children’s overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on average to be higher than that for adults; (c) Values are being sought by eliciting adults’ stated preferences for HRQoL in another person, rather than in themselves (regardless of whether the ‘other person’ concerned is a child); and (d) The need to elicit preferences for child HRQoL that are anchored at dead = 0 invokes special considerations regarding children’s survival. Existing evidence does not rule out the possibility that (c) and (d) exert an upward bias in values. We consider the implications of that for the interpretation and use of values for pediatric HRQoL. Alternative methods for valuing children’s HRQoL in a manner that is not ‘age specific’ are possible and may help to avoid issues of non-comparability. Use of these methods would place the onus on health technology assessment bodies to reflect any special considerations regarding child quality-adjusted life-year gains

Preference elicitation techniques used in valuing children’s health-related quality-of-life: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Valuing children’s health states for use in economic evaluations is globally relevant and is of particular relevance in jurisdictions where a cost-utility analysis is the preferred form of analysis for decision making. Despite this, the challenges with valuing child health mean that there are many remaining questions for debate about the approach to elicitation of values. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the methods used to value children’s health states and the specific issues that arise in the use of these methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases to identify studies published in English since 1990 that used preference elicitation methods to value child and adolescent (under 18 years of age) health states. Eligibility criteria comprised valuation studies concerning both child-specific patient-reported outcome measures and child health states defined in other ways, and methodological studies of valuation approaches that may or may not have yielded a value set algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 77 eligible studies were identified from which data on country setting, aims, condition (general population or clinically specific), sample size, age of respondents, the perspective that participants were asked to adopt, source of values (respondents who completed the preference elicitation tasks) and methods questions asked were extracted. Extracted data were classified and evaluated using narrative synthesis methods. The studies were classified into three groups: (1) studies comparing elicitation methods (n = 30); (2) studies comparing perspectives (n = 23); and (3) studies where no comparisons were presented (n = 26); selected studies could fall into more than one group. Overall, the studies varied considerably both in methods used and in reporting. The preference elicitation tasks included time trade-off, standard gamble, visual analogue scaling, rating/ranking, discrete choice experiments, best-worst scaling and willingness to pay elicited through a contingent valuation. Perspectives included adults’ considering the health states from their own perspective, adults taking the perspective of a child (own, other, hypothetical) and a child/adolescent taking their own or the perspective of another child. There was some evidence that children gave lower values for comparable health states than did adults that adopted their own perspective or adult/parents that adopted the perspective of children. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in reporting limited the conclusions that can be formed about which methods are most suitable for eliciting preferences for children’s health and the influence of differing perspectives and values. Difficulties encountered in drawing conclusions from the data (such as lack of consensus and poor reporting making it difficult for users to choose and interpret available values) suggest that reporting guidelines are required to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of studies that value children’s health using preference-based techniques. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01149-3

An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values

Objectives Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can be used to obtain latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y, but these require anchoring at 0 = dead to meet the conventions of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. The primary aim of this study is to compare four preference elicitation methods for obtaining anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values. Methods Four methods were tested: visual analogue scale (VAS), DCE (with a duration attribute), lag-time time trade-off (TTO) and the location-of-dead (LOD) approach. In computer-assisted personal interviews, UK general public respondents valued EQ-5D-3L health states from an adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y health states from a 10-year-old child perspective. Respondents completed valuation tasks using all four methods, under both perspectives. Results 349 interviews were conducted. Overall, respondents gave lower values under the adult perspective compared to the child perspective, with some variation across methods. The mean TTO value for the worst health state (33333) was about equal to dead in the child perspective and worse than dead in the adult perspective. The mean VAS rescaled value for 33333 was also higher in the child perspective. The DCE produced positive child perspective values and negative adult perspective values, though the models were not consistent. The LOD median rescaled value for 33333 was negative under both perspectives and higher in the child perspective. Discussion There was broad agreement across methods. Potential criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method are presented. We conclude by discussing the decision-making circumstances under which utilities and QALY estimates for children and adults need to be commensurate to achieve allocative efficiency

Systematic review of the relative social value of child and adult health

Objectives: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. Results: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. Conclusions: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public’s views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public’s views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. Clinical Trial Registration: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.</p