Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

  • Commentary
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L | About. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.

  2. Herdman M, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lloyd A. EQ-5D: Moving from three levels to five. Value Health. 2018;21(1):57–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Devlin NJ, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brazier J, Briggs A, Bryan S. EQ-5D-5L: Smaller steps but a major step change? Health Econ. 2018;27(1):4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hernandez Alava M, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set. London: NICE; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.

  9. Konerding U, et al. The validity of the EQ-5D-3L items: an investigation with type 2 diabetes patients from six European countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen-Dahm C, et al. Discrepancy between self- and proxy-rated pain in Alzheimer’s disease: results from the Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(7):1274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramakers GG, et al. Agreement between health utility instruments in cochlear implantation. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(6):737–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickerson JF, et al. Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Qual Life Res. 2017.

  13. Janssen MF, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier J, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):vii–viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mulhern B, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Noyes J, Edwards RT. EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1117–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bailey C, et al. ‘The ICECAP-SCM tells you more about what I’m going through’: A think-aloud study measuring quality of life among patients receiving supportive and palliative care. Palliat Med. 2016;30(7):642–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brazier JE, et al. First validation of the short recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measure. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:96.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stevens K. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):157–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huynh E, et al. Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life. Soc Sci Med. 2017;189:114–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jurkovic D. Organisation of Early Pregnancy Units and its effects on quality of care. 2015 13th February, 2018. https://ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/trials/trial-details/trial-details?trialNumber=ISRCTN10728897. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.

  22. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2004. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008.

  24. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dolan P, Layard R, Metcalfe R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing for Public Policy: Recommendations on Measures. 2011.

  26. van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. McCrone P, et al. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009;12(1):27–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sayah FA, et al. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Patel AR, et al. The validity of the SF-12 and SF-6D instruments in people living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dritsaki M, et al. An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Yousefi M, et al. Comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D scores in patients with breast cancer. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18(5):e23556.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Univeristy of Bristol Health Economics Journal Club for the discussion that informed this commentary. All errors or omissions are the author’s own.

Funding

No specific funding was received for the preparation of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK

    Jeff Round

Authors
  1. Jeff Round
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Round.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Round, J. Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics 36, 641–643 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3

Search

Navigation