EQ-5D: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Updating information provided by the EuroQol group
Tags: references removed Visual edit
updated information provided by the EuroQol group
Tags: nowiki added Visual edit
Line 1: Line 1:
EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life developed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ EuroQol Group] to provide a simple, generic questionnaire for use in clinical and economic appraisal and population health surveys. EQ-5D assesses health status in terms of five dimensions of health and is considered a ‘generic’ questionnaire because these dimensions are not specific to any one patient group or health condition. EQ-5D can also be referred to as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, because patients can complete the questionnaire themselves to provide information about their current health status and how this changes over time. ‘EQ-5D’ is not an abbreviation and is the correct term to use when referring to the instrument in general [1].
EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life developed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ EuroQol Group] to provide a simple, generic questionnaire for use in clinical and economic appraisal and population health surveys. EQ-5D assesses health status in terms of five dimensions of health and is considered a ‘generic’ questionnaire because these dimensions are not specific to any one patient group or health condition. EQ-5D can also be referred to as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, because patients can complete the questionnaire themselves to provide information about their current health status and how this changes over time. ‘EQ-5D’ is not an abbreviation and is the correct term to use when referring to the instrument in general <ref>Brooks R, Boye KS, Slaap B. EQ-5D: a plea for accurate nomenclature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00222-9. PMID: 32620995; PMCID: PMC7334333.</ref>.


EQ-5D is widely used around the world in clinical trials and real-world clinical settings, population studies, and health economic evaluations. By mid-2020, the number of EQ-5D studies registered with the EuroQol Group totalled over 39,000. These comprised over 80 clinical areas and related to surgical procedures, hospital waiting lists, physiotherapy, general practice and primary care, and rehabilitation. The number of annual requests to use EQ-5D is approximately 5000, and EQ-5D data have been reported in over 8000 peer-reviewed papers over the past 30 years [2].
EQ-5D is widely used around the world in clinical trials and real-world clinical settings, population studies, and health economic evaluations. By mid-2020, the number of EQ-5D studies registered with the EuroQol Group totalled over 39,000. These comprised over 80 clinical areas and related to surgical procedures, hospital waiting lists, physiotherapy, general practice and primary care, and rehabilitation. The number of annual requests to use EQ-5D is approximately 5000, and EQ-5D data have been reported in over 8000 peer-reviewed papers over the past 30 years <ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=eq-5d&filter=dates.1990-2020%2F12%2F21 (accessed 21st December 2020).</ref>.


EQ-5D can be used for a variety of purposes. In clinical trials and routine clinical settings, EQ-5D can be used (i) to provide a profile of patient health on the day of questionnaire completion; (ii) to monitor the health status of patient groups at particular times, e.g. at referral, admission, discharge, and follow-up; and (iii) to measure changes in health status over time in individual patients and in cohorts of patients, such as before and after health interventions and treatments. In population studies, EQ-5D can be used to assess population health status at local and national levels and to follow population health status over time. In medical decision-making, EQ-5D can be used (i) to measure the impacts and outcomes of healthcare services; (ii) to provide relevant information for the economic evaluation of health programmes and policies; and (iii) to assist in providing evidence about effectiveness in processes where drugs or procedures require approval. EQ-5D is recommended by many health technology assessment (HTA) bodies internationally as a key component of cost-utility analyses [3].
EQ-5D can be used for a variety of purposes. In clinical trials and routine clinical settings, EQ-5D can be used (i) to provide a profile of patient health on the day of questionnaire completion; (ii) to monitor the health status of patient groups at particular times, e.g. at referral, admission, discharge, and follow-up; and (iii) to measure changes in health status over time in individual patients and in cohorts of patients, such as before and after health interventions and treatments. In population studies, EQ-5D can be used to assess population health status at local and national levels and to follow population health status over time. In medical decision-making, EQ-5D can be used (i) to measure the impacts and outcomes of healthcare services; (ii) to provide relevant information for the economic evaluation of health programmes and policies; and (iii) to assist in providing evidence about effectiveness in processes where drugs or procedures require approval. EQ-5D is recommended by many health technology assessment (HTA) bodies internationally as a key component of cost-utility analyses <ref>Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, Busschbach J, Boye KS. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245-1257. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8. PMID: 32514643; PMCID: PMC7561556. </ref>.


EQ-5D was developed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ EuroQol Group], and its distribution and licensing are managed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/organizational-structure/ EuroQol Research Foundation]. The EuroQol website [4] provides detailed information and the latest developments about EQ-5D including guidance for users, a list of available language versions and value sets by country/region, population norms, and key EQ-5D references. It also explains how to obtain the questionnaire. Those wishing to use EQ-5D must first register their study or trial via the website, using the page ‘[https://euroqol.org/support/how-to-obtain-eq-5d/ How to obtain EQ-5D]’ [5], which has more detailed information about registering, including an animated video. EQ-5D is provided without charging a license fee to non-commercial organisations after they have registered (approximately 95% of users), while commercial users are charged a fee. Registering a study does not obligate the purchase of an EQ-5D licence, but it enables the EuroQol Research Foundation to provide further information relevant to the type of study proposed, including terms and conditions (and licence fees if applicable).
EQ-5D was developed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ EuroQol Group], and its distribution and licensing are managed by the [https://euroqol.org/euroqol/organizational-structure/ EuroQol Research Foundation]. The EuroQol website <ref>https://euroqol.org</ref> provides detailed information and the latest developments about EQ-5D including guidance for users, a list of available language versions and value sets by country/region, population norms, and key EQ-5D references. It also explains how to obtain the questionnaire. Those wishing to use EQ-5D must first register their study or trial via the website, using the page ‘[https://euroqol.org/support/how-to-obtain-eq-5d/ How to obtain EQ-5D]’ <ref>[https://euroqol.org/support/how-to-obtain-eq-5d/ https:/euroqol.org/support/how-to-obtain-eq-5d/]</ref>, which has more detailed information about registering, including an animated video. EQ-5D is provided without charging a license fee to non-commercial organisations after they have registered (approximately 95% of users), while commercial users are charged a fee. Registering a study does not obligate the purchase of an EQ-5D licence, but it enables the EuroQol Research Foundation to provide further information relevant to the type of study proposed, including terms and conditions (and licence fees if applicable).


== Development of the questionnaire ==
== 1. Development of the questionnaire ==
The EuroQol Group first met in 1987 with the goal of identifying a set of standardised questions that could be used to collect data on how people’s lives were affected by illness and by health interventions. What was originally termed ‘the EuroQol instrument’ was developed by 1990 and contained questions on five aspects (or ‘dimensions’) of health, with three levels of severity in each dimension <ref>EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. PMID: 10109801.</ref>. It was constructed simultaneously in five languages: Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English (which was to function as the source, or reference, language) <ref>Brooks R. The EuroQol Group after 25 years. Springer, 2013. Available from: www.springeronline.com. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5158-3. ISBN: 978-94-007-5158-3</ref>. The questionnaire was re-named ‘EQ-5D’ in 1995 and now comprises a family of questionnaires: the three-level EQ-5D-3L, the five-level EQ-5D-5L, and the youth version EQ-5D-Y.
EQ-5D was first introduced in 1990 by the EuroQol Group.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=EuroQol Group|date=1990-12-01|title=EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life|journal=Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)|volume=16|issue=3|pages=199–208|issn=0168-8510|pmid=10109801|doi=10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9}}</ref> This group was initially formed in 1987 with the researchers of multidisciplinary areas from five European countries; Netherlands, UK, Sweden, Finland, and Norway.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/working-paper-series/file/EuroQol_Working_Paper_Series_Manuscript_15003_-_Richard_Brooks_01.pdf.html|title=28 Years of the EuroQol Group: An Overview|last=Brooks|first=Richard|date=December 2015|website=EQ-5D|publisher=EuroQol Research Foundation|access-date=22 February 2016}}{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> They worked cooperatively with the aim of developing an instrument which is not specific to disease but standardized and can be used as a complement for existing [[Quality of life (healthcare)|health-related quality of life]] (HRQoL) measures.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf|title=EQ-5D-3L User Guide|last=Reenen|first=Mandy van|date=April 2015|website=EQ-5D|publisher=EuroQol Research Foundation|access-date=22 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151224022309/http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf|archive-date=24 December 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Rabin|first=R.|last2=de Charro|first2=F.|date=2001-07-01|title=EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group|journal=Annals of Medicine|volume=33|issue=5|pages=337–343|issn=0785-3890|pmid=11491192|doi=10.3109/07853890109002087}}</ref> Other required characteristics of the new instrument were capable of being sent as a postal questionnaire for self-completion, easy to complete, applicable to everyone, can produce a single index value, and can take into account the health status ‘worse than dead’.<ref name=":4" />


EQ-5D was designed as a self-completed questionnaire to fulfil two functions: (i) to provide a descriptive profile of current health status; and (ii) to provide a way of assigning a single numerical value to each of the possible health states described by the descriptive system, for use in economic evaluations of health care <ref>Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337-43. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087. PMID: 11491192.</ref>. The requirements for its design were that (i) the dimensions should be relevant to both patients and members of the general population; (ii) the descriptive system should be simple – with as few dimensions as possible, and as few levels as possible within each dimension; (iii) it should be short and easily self-completed in a range of settings, and simple enough not to require detailed instructions; and (iv) it should be reliable, valid, and able to identify changes in health status related to illness and health interventions.
== Components ==
The EQ-5D questionnaire has two components: health state description and evaluation.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Whynes|first=David K.|last2=TOMBOLA Group|date=2008-01-01|title=Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores|journal=Health and Quality of Life Outcomes|volume=6|pages=94|doi=10.1186/1477-7525-6-94|issn=1477-7525|pmc=2588564|pmid=18992139}}</ref>


== 2. Components ==
In the description part, health status is measured in terms of five dimensions (5D); mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Mobility dimension asks about the person's walking ability. Self-care dimension asks about the ability to wash or dress by oneself, and usual activities dimension measures performance in "work, study, housework, family or leisure activities". In pain/discomfort dimension, it asks how much pain or discomfort they have, and in anxiety/depression dimension, it asks how anxious or depressed they are. The respondents self-rate their level of severity for each dimension using three-level (EQ-5D-3L) or five-level (EQ-5D-5L) scale.
The EQ-5D essentially consists of two pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system (page 2 of the questionnaire) and the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (page 3 of the questionnaire) (Video: [https://vimeo.com/366207839 Explaining the EQ-5D in about Two and Half Minutes]). As noted above, ‘EQ-5D’ is not an abbreviation and is the correct term to use when referring to the instrument. Sample versions in UK English can be viewed at https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/sample-demo/.


=== 2.1. Descriptive system ===
In the evaluation part, the respondents evaluate their overall health status using the [[visual analogue scale]] (EQ-VAS).
The EQ-5D descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression. The number of levels in these dimensions differ in the EQ-5D-3L (three levels) and the EQ-5D-5L (five levels). The EQ-5D-Y has the same five dimensions, but they are worded more appropriately for young people.


=== Descriptive system ===
====2.1.1. EQ-5D-3L====
In EQ-5D-3L, the five dimensions each have three response levels of severity. The mobility dimension ranges from ‘I have no problems walking about’ to ‘I am confined to bed’. The self-care dimension ranges from ‘I have no problems with self-care’ to ‘I am unable to wash or dress myself’. The usual activities dimension concerns work, study, housework, family, or leisure activities and ranges from ‘I have no problems doing my usual activities’ to ‘I am unable to do my usual activities’. The pain/discomfort dimension ranges from ‘I have no pain or discomfort’ to ‘I have extreme pain or discomfort’. The anxiety/depression dimension ranges from ‘I am not anxious or depressed’ to ‘I am extremely anxious or depressed’.


Respondents are asked to choose the statement in each dimension that best describes their health status on the day they are surveyed. Their responses are coded as a number (1, 2, or 3) that corresponds to the respective level of severity: 1 indicates no problems, 2 some problems, and 3 extreme problems. In this way, a person’s health state profile can be defined by a 5-digit number, ranging from 11111 (having no problems in any of the dimensions) to 33333 (having extreme problems in all the dimensions). The health state 12321 would indicate a person having no problems with mobility, having some problems with self-care, being unable to perform their usual activities, having some pain or discomfort, and not being anxious or depressed. In total, the EQ-5D-3L describes 243 (=35) potential health states <ref>EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L User Guide, 2018. Available from https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.</ref>.
====EQ-5D-3L====
When EQ-5D was first developed, the scale used in the health state description part was three-level; having no problems, having some or moderate problems, being unable to do/having extreme problems. As an example, three levels of mobility dimension are phrased as "I have no problems in walking about", "I have some problems in walking about", and "I am confined to bed". The respondents are asked to choose one of the statements which best describes their health status of surveyed day. Rated level can be coded as a number 1, 2, or 3, which indicates having no problems for 1, having some problems for 2, and having extreme problems for 3. As a result, a person's health status can be defined by a 5-digit number, ranging from 11111 (having no problems in all dimensions) to 33333 (having extreme problems in all dimensions). 12321 indicates having no problems in mobility and anxiety/depression, having slight problems in self-care and pain/discomfort, and having extreme problems in usual activities. There are potentially 243 (=3<sup>5</sup>) different health states.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":0" />


==== EQ-5D-Y ====
==== 2.1.2. EQ-5D-5L ====
EQ-5D-5L was introduced in 2009 with the aim of enhancing instrument sensitivity and providing respondents with the opportunity to provide a more detailed and accurate picture of their health. The EQ-5D-5L descriptive system uses the same five dimensions as the EQ-5D-3L but has two extra levels of severity in each dimension. The five levels in each dimension are worded as (1) ‘not /no problems’, (2) ‘slight problems’, (3) ‘moderate problems’, (4) ‘severe problems’, and (5) ‘unable to’ (mobility, self-care, usual activities), ‘extreme’ (pain/depression), or ‘extremely’ (anxiety/depression). A few changes in the wording of some levels were also made. For example, in the mobility dimension, the 3L term ‘confined to bed’ has been replaced with ‘unable to walk about’ in the 5L; and the first level of self-care in the 5L now refers to washing and dressing, to be consistent with the other levels. Because of the additional levels in EQ-5D-5L, the descriptive system describes 3125 (=55) potential health states <ref>EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide, 2019. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.</ref>.
A 'youth version' of the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system was developed for self-completion by children and younger people.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wille|first=Nora|last2=Badia|first2=Xavier|last3=Bonsel|first3=Gouke|last4=Burström|first4=Kristina|last5=Cavrini|first5=Gulia|last6=Devlin|first6=Nancy|last7=Egmar|first7=Ann-Charlotte|last8=Greiner|first8=Wolfgang|last9=Gusi|first9=Narcis|date=2010-04-20|title=Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D|journal=Quality of Life Research|language=en|volume=19|issue=6|pages=875–886|doi=10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y|pmid=20405245|pmc=2892611|issn=0962-9343}}</ref> It includes equivalent dimensions to the original EQ-5D-3L, phrased so as to be more easily understood and relevant for younger people. The dimensions are: 'mobility', 'looking after myself', 'doing usual activities', 'having pain or discomfort' and 'feeling worried, sad or unhappy'. A later version of EQ-5D-Y, called the EQ-5D-Y-5L<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kreimeier|first=S.|last2=Åström|first2=M.|last3=Burström|first3=K.|last4=Egmar|first4=A.-C.|last5=Gusi|first5=N.|last6=Herdman|first6=M.|last7=Kind|first7=P.|last8=Perez-Sousa|first8=M. A.|last9=Greiner|first9=W.|date=July 2019|title=EQ-5D-Y-5L: developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/157118/|journal=Quality of Life Research|language=en|volume=28|pages=1951–1961|issn=0962-9343}}</ref> was developed as a 5-level 'youth' version. The EQ-5D-Y-5L aligned with the number of response options in the EQ-5D-5L.


==== EQ-5D-5L ====
==== '''2.1.3. EQ-5D-Y''' ====
The EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-Y) was introduced by the EuroQol Group in 2009 as a more suitable questionnaire for children and adolescents <ref>Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Scalone L, Ravens-Sieberer U. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875-86. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y. PMID: 20405245; PMCID: PMC2892611.</ref>. It is based on the EQ-5D-3L, but the wording has been modified to be more easily understood and relevant for younger people. The dimensions are: mobility (walking about); looking after myself; doing usual activities (e.g., going to school, hobbies, sports, playing, doing things with family and friends); having pain or discomfort; and feeling worried, sad, or unhappy. The levels for the first four dimensions are: ‘none/no problems’, ‘some (problems)’, and ‘a lot (of problems)’. The levels in the feeling worried, sad, or unhappy dimension are: ‘not’, ‘a bit’, and ‘very’. EQ-5D-Y is recommended for use with 8–11-year-olds and for 12–15-year-olds (although the adult version may be appropriate in the older age group, depending on study design; see Table 1 [<ref>EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-Y User Guide, Version 2.0, 2020. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides/.</ref>). For children aged 4–7 years, a proxy version should be used – i.e. a version of the questionnaire that is suitable for completion by a third party (e.g. a parent, caregiver, or health professional) on the child’s behalf.
Although its brevity contributed a lot for the wide use of EQ-5D, the three-level scale showed some limitations. The major drawback is that it has much fewer descriptive capability of health status compared to other generic instruments. For example, the [[Health Utilities Index]] Mark 2 and Mark 3 (HUI 2 and HUI 3) and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) can define 24,000, 972,000, and 18,000 unique health states, while EQ-5D-3L can do only 243.<ref name=":3" /> As a consequence, it suffers from ceiling effects which are present when participants’ scores reach the best possible score of the instrument.<ref>Garin O. (2014) Ceiling Effect. In: Michalos A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_296</ref> Several studies reported ceiling effects for the EQ-5D-3L.<ref>Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13(9):873-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866</ref><ref>Kontodimopoulos N, Argiriou M, Theakos N, Niakas D. (2011) The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure. Eur J Health Econ 12(4):383–391 doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0252-4</ref><ref>Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN. (2014) Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Med Port 27(2):236-45</ref><ref>Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, Tountas Y, Niakas D. (2009) Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res 18:87–97. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8</ref> EQ-5D-3L showed low sensitivity to small and medium health changes<ref>Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x</ref> and low responsiveness to detect clinical change especially for the conditions such as [[schizophrenia]], [[Alcohol dependence|alcohol dependency]], [[Hearing loss|hearing impairment]] and limb reconstruction.<ref>Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. (2015) Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics 33(11):1137–1154. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6</ref> To improve such constraints of the three-level scale, the new version of EQ-5D with five-level scale was developed (EQ-5D-5L).<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Products/Sample_UK__English__EQ-5D-5L_Paper_Self_complete_v1.0__ID_24700_.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2016-08-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161130141741/http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Products/Sample_UK__English__EQ-5D-5L_Paper_Self_complete_v1.0__ID_24700_.pdf |archive-date=2016-11-30 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The number of levels of severity was increased to five in this new version; having no problems, having slight problems, having moderate problems, having severe problems and being unable to do/having extreme problems. The new version can define 3,125 (=5<sup>5</sup>) different health states. Some of the wordings of the scale were revisited to be clearer and the instruction for EQ-VAS was simplified. No changes were made for the five dimensions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Reenen|first=Mandy van|date=April 2015|title=EQ-5D-5L User Guide|url=https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf|access-date=22 February 2016|website=EQ-5D|publisher=EuroQol Research Foundation}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Herdman|first=M.|last2=Gudex|first2=C.|last3=Lloyd|first3=A.|last4=Janssen|first4=Mf|last5=Kind|first5=P.|last6=Parkin|first6=D.|last7=Bonsel|first7=G.|last8=Badia|first8=X.|date=2011-12-01|title=Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)|journal=Quality of Life Research|volume=20|issue=10|pages=1727–1736|doi=10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x|issn=1573-2649|pmc=3220807|pmid=21479777}}</ref>


=== 2.2. EQ VAS ===
The validity and reliability of the EQ-5D have been assessed for the different language versions and various health conditions, including cancer, type 2 diabetes, COPD, asthma, and cardiovascular disease, and so on.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=van Hout|first=Ben|last2=Janssen|first2=M. F.|last3=Feng|first3=You-Shan|last4=Kohlmann|first4=Thomas|last5=Busschbach|first5=Jan|last6=Golicki|first6=Dominik|last7=Lloyd|first7=Andrew|last8=Scalone|first8=Luciana|last9=Kind|first9=Paul|date=2012-08-01|title=Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets|journal=Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research|volume=15|issue=5|pages=708–715|doi=10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008|issn=1524-4733|pmid=22867780|doi-access=free}}</ref> The 5L system showed improved responsiveness compared to the 3L system, and also good validity and reliability . EQ-5D-5L has also been recommended to the elderly population as a generic health status measurement, in combination with other supplementary measurements to capture all related aspects in their quality-of-life.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bulamu|first=Norma B.|last2=Kaambwa|first2=Billingsley|last3=Ratcliffe|first3=Julie|date=2015-11-09|title=A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care|journal=Health and Quality of Life Outcomes|language=En|volume=13|issue=1|pages=179|doi=10.1186/s12955-015-0372-8|pmc=4640110|pmid=26553129}}</ref>
The second part of the questionnaire in all three versions of EQ-5D comprises a standard vertical 20-cm VAS that is calibrated from ‘the worst health you can imagine’ (scored 0) at its base to ‘the best health you can imagine’ (scored 100) at its apex. Respondents are asked to ‘mark an X on the scale to indicate how your health is TODAY’ and to write the number in an adjoining box.


This procedure makes it possible for respondents to provide a rating of their overall health on the day they complete the questionnaire. The VAS can also be used to assess changes in a patient’s perception of their own health over time. For example, a patient may rate their current health as 50 on the scale, but after a medical intervention the respondent’s rating may be 85, reflecting a substantial improvement in health status. When a group of patients completes the EQ-5D questionnaire before and after treatment, the change in self-rated health can be recorded from the VAS data.
=== Visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) ===
Visual analogue scale is the second part of the questionnaire, asking to mark health status on the day of the interview on a 20&nbsp;cm vertical scale with end points of 0 and 100. There are notes at the both ends of the scale that the bottom rate (0) corresponds to " the worst health you can imagine", and the highest rate (100) corresponds to "the best health you can imagine". In the EQ-5D-3L version, the respondents has to draw a line from the box on the questionnaire to the scale indicates the health state of the interviewed day, while the EQ-5D-5L version asks to mark X on the scale to indicate the today's health and write the number of the scale marked in the empty box on the questionnaire.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" /> A well-known limitation of visual analogue scale is end-of-scale bias that respondents are less likely to use the extreme ends of the scale for rating their health status. However, it is still useful and the simplest direct method for valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) weights.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Whitehead|first=Sarah J.|last2=Ali|first2=Shehzad|date=2010-01-01|title=Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities|journal=British Medical Bulletin|volume=96|pages=5–21|doi=10.1093/bmb/ldq033|issn=1471-8391|pmid=21037243|doi-access=free}}</ref>


== Valuation process ==
== 3. EQ-5D versions ==
Once the health status is assessed from the description part, the 5-digit number can be converted into a preference weight which is also referred to as a single weighted index score. It can be done by using methods for generating HRQoL weights, such as visual analogue scale (VAS), the [[time-trade-off]] (TTO), and the standard gamble (SG). The choice of the valuation methods can vary. The initial purpose of having visual analogue scale in the EQ-5D questionnaire was to get preference weights using the scale, but the time-trade-off has become favored because it is a "choice task", not a "rating task" which easily involves some scaling bias.<ref name=":5" /> Time-trade-off is recommended when performing cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as an outcome, but other methods could be chosen for different type of analyses. A value set was developed using time-trade-off in many countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, Spain, Japan, and Germany.<ref name=":4" /> The index score of a value set derived from the general population sample can be regarded as a "''societal'' valuation of the respondent's health state" in that country. In contrast, the scores from the visual analogue scale in the questionnaire indicates the respondent's ''own'' assessment of his/her health status".<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Guidelines for analysing and reporting EQ-5D outcomes|last=Krabbe|first=Paul|last2=Weijnen|first2=Tom|date=2003-01-01|publisher=Springer Netherlands|isbn=9789048162611|editor-last=Brooks|editor-first=Richard|pages=7–19|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-94-017-0233-1_2|editor-last2=Rabin|editor-first2=Rosalind|editor-last3=Charro|editor-first3=Frank de}}</ref> A value set derived from the general population sample has been criticized for a lack of a compelling theoretical support.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gandjour|first1=Afschin|title=Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs|journal=Medical Decision Making|date=28 May 2010|volume=30|issue=4|pages=E57–E63|doi=10.1177/0272989X10370488|pmid=20511562}}</ref>


=== 3.1. Modes of administration ===
== References ==
EQ-5D is available in different formats depending on the mode of administration. The 3L, 5L, and Y versions can be self-completed on paper or by telephone or digitally, e.g., laptop/desktop, tablet, REDCap, interactive voice response (IVR), and smartphone/personal digital assistant (PDA). The EQ-5D can be hosted on local servers or on alternatives such as REDCap, LimeSurvey, Castor EDC, or Qualtrics platforms.

If people are unable to complete the EQ-5D themselves for any reason, e.g. due to ill-health or literacy problems, interviewer-administered versions are available for use in telephone, online, or face-to-face interviews.

It is sometimes appropriate to ask a caregiver (or proxy) to answer on behalf of people who cannot complete the questionnaire themselves (e.g. because they are too young, too ill, or have severe mental health problems or intellectual disability). The EQ-5D has two proxy versions: proxy version 1 asks the proxy to provide their own rating of the other person’s health, while proxy version 2 asks the proxy how they think the person being evaluated would describe his/her own health if they were able to complete the questionnaire.

=== 3.2. Translations ===
EQ-5D is available in more than 200 languages. Translation of the EQ-5D into new languages is overseen by the EuroQol Group’s Version Management Committee (VMC) and is usually carried out in a collaboration with professional agencies with expertise in the cultural adaptation of PRO measures <ref>Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17(1):70-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006. PMID: 24438719.</ref>.

All translations follow a standard and closely monitored process that conforms to internationally recognised guidelines <ref>Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P; ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. PMID: 15804318.</ref>. The main steps in the translation process are forward translation, back translation, and cognitive debriefing ([https://vimeo.com/441972105 Animation video: Translating Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Use Around the World - The Example of EQ-5D]). The goal of translation is to produce an EQ-5D version that has the same meaning as the English source version. Furthermore, it must sound natural and be easily understood in the target language.

== 4. Value sets for EQ-5D health states ==
When a person completes the EQ-5D questionnaire, the descriptive system produces a 5-digit health status profile that represents that person’s level of reported problems on the five EQ-5D health dimensions. These profiles are usually referred to as ‘EQ-5D health states’. As noted above, EQ-5D-3L describes 243 potential health states while the EQ-5D-5L describes 3125 potential health states.

A numerical value can be attached to each EQ-5D health state to reflect how good or bad a health state is according to the preferences of the general population of a country/region. Health state values can also be referred to as EQ-5D ‘index values’ or ‘index scores’. The collection of index values for all possible EQ-5D states is called a value set. EQ-5D value sets are constructed at the national level, reflecting the belief that preferences for health can differ across populations.

Valuation research aims to measure people’s preferences with respect to health – in other words, how health is valued. This involves the participation of a representative sample of people from the general population in a standardised valuation experiment. In this experiment, participants are asked to value health by reviewing EQ-5D health states.

Because EQ-5D has values attached to its health states, it is widely used in the economic evaluation of health care interventions, where the convention is to measure health gains as value-weighted time using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) <ref>[[Quality-adjusted life year]]</ref>. The values can also inform other research, such as studies in the burden of illness.

Various techniques can be used to assign a value to an EQ-5D state. The EuroQol Group has done extensive research on different methods of valuing EQ-5D health states (see the historical review below). Most EQ-5D value sets are based on the time trade-off (TTO) approach, used either alone or in combination with discrete choice experiments (DCE). EQ-5D-3L value sets using TTO are available for over 30 countries or regions <ref>https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-3l-about/valuation</ref>. EQ-5D-5L value sets using TTO (+ DCE) are available for many countries <ref>https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/valuation-standard-value-sets/</ref>, and valuation studies are ongoing in further countries.

=== 4.1. EQ-5D-3L value sets: VAS and TTO approaches ===
Initial EQ-5D-3L valuation research in the late 1980s investigated ranking, magnitude estimation, and VAS approaches as ways of obtaining values for health states and resulted in the choice of a VAS approach <ref>Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127-137. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5. PMID: 28194657; PMCID: PMC5343080.</ref>. At that time, other methods such as TTO were in their infancy, or, as in the case of the standard gamble, had been little used in the health status context.

Investigation into alternative valuation methods continued <ref>Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. PMID: 10158943.</ref>, and in the early 1990s the TTO approach was used in the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) study carried out by the University of York in the UK. This generated an EQ-5D value set based on TTO values from the general public that could be used to generate QALYs. The MVH value set <ref>Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141-54. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N. PMID: 8733106. </ref>,<ref>Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. PMID: 9366889. </ref> became widely applied in economic evaluations in the UK and other countries, and continues to be used today.

Over the following years, EQ-5D-3L value sets were produced for many countries using either TTO and/or VAS approaches [8]. Over time, however, TTO emerged as the method of first choice.

The EQ-net project of 1998–2001, which was funded by the Biomed programme of the European Commission, resulted in the establishment of TTO and VAS databases to facilitate international comparisons of health state values <ref>Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. (eds.) EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. EuroQol Group Monographs Volume 2. Springer, 2006. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-5511-0.  ISBN: 978-1-4020-5511-9. </ref> <ref>Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. (eds). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Springer, 2003. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-0233-1. <nowiki>ISBN 978-94-017-0233-1</nowiki>.</ref>.

In 2009, the MVH protocol for valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states was refined to improve the data collection process; this was referred to as the ‘Paris protocol’. This protocol has been used in a number of EQ-5D-3L valuation studies, including those of South Korea, China, France, Portugal, and Brazil <ref>Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993-1004. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1. PMID: 27084198; PMCID: PMC5023738.</ref>.

The development of the EQ-5D-5L renewed interest in the methodology of valuing health. Until 5L value sets were produced, interim values for the EQ-5D-5L were made available using a ‘crosswalk’ approach based on a study in six countries, in which the EQ-5D-3L and 5L had been completed in parallel <ref>Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. PMID: 23184421; PMCID: PMC3764313.</ref>. This meant that values for EQ-5D-5L health states could be derived from existing EQ-5D-3L value sets <ref>van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. PMID: 22867780.</ref>.

=== 4.2. EQ-5D-3L value sets: EQ-VT combining composite TTP and DCE ===
Value sets for QALY calculations are required to range from 1 (representing full health) to 0 (representing dead), and it is generally accepted that very poor health states may be considered worse than being dead. Due to the recognised challenges of valuing states worse than death, the EuroQol Group initiated a programme of research to further investigate valuation of these states. This involved testing new methods for TTO, including multiple variants of ‘lead-time’ TTO <ref>Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393-402. doi: 10.1002/hec.1069. PMID: 16389652.</ref> and ‘lag-time’ TTO <ref>Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Tilling C, Wilkinson G, van Hout B. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517-32. doi: 10.1002/hec.2819. PMID: 22715069.</ref> <ref>Attema AE, Versteegh MM, Oppe M, Brouwer WB, Stolk EA. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376-92. doi: 10.1002/hec.2804. PMID: 22396243.</ref>. It should also be noted that in the 5L valuation procedure EuroQol continued to use TTO, but VAS was discarded and replaced by DCE.

With the introduction of 5L, the opportunity was taken to introduce a standardised protocol for the first time. This decision was based on multiple considerations. Variability in how value sets were produced had provide much information about what worked and what did not work in the valuation of health, but it limited the comparability of value sets. Moreover, valuation of 5L was considered more challenging than valuation of 3L – hence efforts to define best practice had to be renewed, to ensure high-quality data. Furthermore, the programme of work that followed enabled several open methodological questions to be addressed.

A key aspect in this research was the potential of computer-based technology to help guide the respondents through the valuation tasks. The programme led to a new TTO approach (the composite TTO; cTTO <ref>Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002. PMID: 24969006.</ref>) that removed the need for arbitrary rescaling of values for states worse than dead. Composite TTO uses the conventional approach for states considered better than dead, but lead-time TTO for states considered worse than dead <ref>Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14 Suppl 1:S5-13. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2. PMID: 23900660.</ref>. At the same time, new approaches to health state valuation were being tested, such as DCEs <ref>Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x. PMID: 20825618.</ref> <ref>[[Discrete choice.]]</ref>.

This work culminated in the EQ-VT (EuroQol Valuation Technology) protocol, which uses a standardised computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) to derive health preferences for EQ-5D-5L using cTTO and DCE [30]. The first valuation studies using this approach were conducted in Canada, China, England, the Netherlands, and Spain in 2012. Following several refinements, the current EQ-VT is labelled version 2.1 <ref>Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010. PMID: 30661630.</ref>. By September 2019, the EQ-VT had been used in 34 countries around the world [10].

=== 4.3. EQ-5D-Y value sets ===
Due to the added difficulties of obtaining values for health states in paediatric populations, value sets for the EQ-5D-Y have taken longer to develop. In 2020, the EuroQol Group published an international valuation protocol for the youth version <ref>Kreimeier S, Greiner W. EQ-5D-Y as a Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument for Children and Adolescents: The Instrument's Characteristics, Development, Current Use, and Challenges of Developing Its Value Set. Value Health. 2019;22(1):31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.001. PMID: 30661631.</ref> <ref>Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Stolk E, Shah K, Kreimeier S, Rivero-Arias O, Devlin N. International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(7):653-663. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3. PMID: 32297224.</ref> and the first EQ-5D-Y valuation study, for Slovenia, was published in 2021.<ref>Prevolnik Rupel V, Ogorevc M; IMPACT HTA HRQoL Group. EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00994-4. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33565048.</ref> Further EQ-5D-Y valuation studies are underway in countries around the world. Note that EQ-5D-3L value sets should not be used to assign values to EQ-5D-Y health states. <ref>Kreimeier S, Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Cole A, Devlin N, Herdman M, Mulhern B, Shah KK, Stolk E, Rivero-Arias O, Greiner W. Valuation of EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Health States: The Impact of Wording and Perspective. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1291-1298. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.002. PMID: 30442276.</ref> <ref>Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, Olivares PR, Greiner W. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2519-39. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0971-1. PMID: 25894060; PMCID: PMC4564451.</ref>

== 5. EQ-5D data analysis ==
More detailed information on how to analyse EQ-5D data is available in a book <ref>Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ-5D Data. Springer, 2020. Open Access. Available from: www.springeronline.com. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47622-9. <nowiki>ISBN 978-3-030-47622-9</nowiki>.</ref> that describes various analytical approaches for the EQ-5D descriptive profiles, EQ VAS, and EQ-5D value sets.

== 6. Psychometric properties ==
The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L have been assessed for EQ-5D versions in many different health conditions, including cardiovascular disease <ref>Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-13. PMID: 20109189; PMCID: PMC2824714.</ref> <ref>Batóg P, Rencz F, Péntek M, Gulácsi L, Filipiak KJ, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, Brodszky V, Baji P, Závada J, Petrova G, Rotar A, Golicki D. EQ-5D studies in cardiovascular diseases in eight Central and Eastern European countries: a systematic review of the literature. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(5):860-870. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0033. PMID: 29350378.</ref>, mental health populations <ref>Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Jones ML, Paisley S, O'Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G. 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. doi: 10.3310/hta18340. PMID: 24857402; PMCID: PMC4781324. </ref>, aged care <ref>Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Nov;13:179. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0372-8. PMID: 26553129; PMCID: PMC4640110.</ref>, skin conditions <ref>Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L. EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):927-939. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0638-9. PMID: 25358263; PMCID: PMC4646948.</ref>, cancer <ref>Schwenkglenks M, Matter-Walstra K. Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):207-219. doi:10.1586/14737167.2016.1146594. PMID: 26808097.</ref>, and total knee arthroplasty <ref>Shim J, Hamilton DF. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 Global Health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(7):832-837. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1. PMID: 31256677; PMCID: PMC6616061.</ref>.

The brevity of EQ-5D-3L is likely to be a major factor in its widespread use, but the three-level format can be a limitation in some clinical areas. The EQ-5D-3L descriptive system can be less sensitive to small and medium changes in health status <ref>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). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. PMID: 21479777; PMCID: PMC3220807. </ref>, so it may be less able to detect change in some conditions <ref>Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(11):1137-54. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6. PMID: 26040242; PMCID: PMC4609224. </ref> <ref>Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011;14(2):390-399. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002. PMID: 21402307.</ref>.

The 5L descriptive system has shown improved responsiveness compared to the 3L system, e.g. in a comparison of eight patient groups [25], osteoarthritis <ref>Bilbao A, García-Pérez L, Arenaza JC, García I, Ariza-Cardiel G, Trujillo-Martín E, Forjaz MJ, Martín-Fernández J. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(11):2897-2908. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x. PMID: 29978346. </ref>, and joint replacement <ref>Jin X, Al Sayah F, Ohinmaa A, Marshall DA, Johnson JA. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients following total hip or knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(9):2409-2417. doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02200-1. PMID: 31089988.</ref>, as well as acceptable psychometric properties in conditions such as stroke <ref>Chen P, Lin KC, Liing RJ, Wu CY, Chen CL, Chang KC. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1585-1596. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z. PMID: 26714699.</ref>, chronic obstructive lung disease <ref>Nolan CM, Longworth L, Lord J, Canavan JL, Jones SE, Kon SS, Man WD. The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax. 2016;71(6):493-500. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782. PMID: 27030578; PMCID: PMC4893131.</ref>, and scoliosis <ref>Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Lau ST, Cheung JPY. Responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(2):278-285. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5330-1. PMID: 28993884.</ref>. Some studies have assessed the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L together <ref>Qian X, Tan RL, Chuang LH, Luo N. Measurement Properties of Commonly Used Generic Preference-Based Measures in East and South-East Asia: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):159-170. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00854-w. PMID: 31761995; PMCID: PMC7081654.</ref>.

The psychometric properties of EQ-5D-Y have been assessed in a variety of settings and conditions [35,<ref>Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Olivares PR, Scalone L, Greiner W. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887-97. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x. PMID: 20401552; PMCID: PMC2892614. </ref>].

== 7. EQ-5D in population health studies ==
EQ-5D has been extensively utilised in population health studies, both at the national level and for subsections of a country’s population, such as a specific region. Data collected with EQ-5D can be used to assess and compare health status between groups of patients, between patients and the general population, or between the general populations of different countries. It can also be used to monitor changes in health status over time at population level.

Cross-country analyses of self-reported population health using EQ-5D data have been reported and subsequently updated [22,<ref>Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J, editors. Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht (NL): Springer; 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1. PMID: 29787044.</ref>,<ref>Janssen MF, Szende A, Cabases J, Ramos-Goñi JM, Vilagut G, König HH. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(2):205-216. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0955-5. PMID: 29445941; PMCID: PMC6438939.</ref>]. The first publication incorporated data from 15 countries [22], and the second from 24 countries [58]. Since then, EQ-5D-5L population norms have also been published for Japanese <ref>Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707-19. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2. PMID: 26303761; PMCID: PMC4759213.</ref>, German <ref>Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stöbel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brähler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):443-447. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2. PMID: 23921597.</ref>, and South Australian populations <ref>McCaffrey N, Kaambwa B, Currow DC, Ratcliffe J. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0. PMID: 27644755; PMCID: PMC5028927.</ref>.

== 8. EQ-5D in economic evaluation ==
EQ-5D is the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaire in health economic evaluations <ref>Wisløff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):367-75. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z. PMID: 24477679; PMCID: PMC3964297.</ref>. EQ-5D can be used to derive a set of values that reflect people’s opinions of the relative importance of different health problems. These values can be used to derive QALYs for application in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluations.

In a review study of recommendations from national HTA agencies, EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) most frequently mentioned in HTA guidelines. The most commonly-cited MAUI (in 85% of pharmacoeconomic guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in cost-utility analysis in HTA [3].

== 9. References ==
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist}}



Revision as of 11:31, 26 February 2021

EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life developed by the EuroQol Group to provide a simple, generic questionnaire for use in clinical and economic appraisal and population health surveys. EQ-5D assesses health status in terms of five dimensions of health and is considered a ‘generic’ questionnaire because these dimensions are not specific to any one patient group or health condition. EQ-5D can also be referred to as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, because patients can complete the questionnaire themselves to provide information about their current health status and how this changes over time. ‘EQ-5D’ is not an abbreviation and is the correct term to use when referring to the instrument in general [1].

EQ-5D is widely used around the world in clinical trials and real-world clinical settings, population studies, and health economic evaluations. By mid-2020, the number of EQ-5D studies registered with the EuroQol Group totalled over 39,000. These comprised over 80 clinical areas and related to surgical procedures, hospital waiting lists, physiotherapy, general practice and primary care, and rehabilitation. The number of annual requests to use EQ-5D is approximately 5000, and EQ-5D data have been reported in over 8000 peer-reviewed papers over the past 30 years [2].

EQ-5D can be used for a variety of purposes. In clinical trials and routine clinical settings, EQ-5D can be used (i) to provide a profile of patient health on the day of questionnaire completion; (ii) to monitor the health status of patient groups at particular times, e.g. at referral, admission, discharge, and follow-up; and (iii) to measure changes in health status over time in individual patients and in cohorts of patients, such as before and after health interventions and treatments. In population studies, EQ-5D can be used to assess population health status at local and national levels and to follow population health status over time. In medical decision-making, EQ-5D can be used (i) to measure the impacts and outcomes of healthcare services; (ii) to provide relevant information for the economic evaluation of health programmes and policies; and (iii) to assist in providing evidence about effectiveness in processes where drugs or procedures require approval. EQ-5D is recommended by many health technology assessment (HTA) bodies internationally as a key component of cost-utility analyses [3].

EQ-5D was developed by the EuroQol Group, and its distribution and licensing are managed by the EuroQol Research Foundation. The EuroQol website [4] provides detailed information and the latest developments about EQ-5D including guidance for users, a list of available language versions and value sets by country/region, population norms, and key EQ-5D references. It also explains how to obtain the questionnaire. Those wishing to use EQ-5D must first register their study or trial via the website, using the page ‘How to obtain EQ-5D[5], which has more detailed information about registering, including an animated video. EQ-5D is provided without charging a license fee to non-commercial organisations after they have registered (approximately 95% of users), while commercial users are charged a fee. Registering a study does not obligate the purchase of an EQ-5D licence, but it enables the EuroQol Research Foundation to provide further information relevant to the type of study proposed, including terms and conditions (and licence fees if applicable).

1. Development of the questionnaire

The EuroQol Group first met in 1987 with the goal of identifying a set of standardised questions that could be used to collect data on how people’s lives were affected by illness and by health interventions. What was originally termed ‘the EuroQol instrument’ was developed by 1990 and contained questions on five aspects (or ‘dimensions’) of health, with three levels of severity in each dimension [6]. It was constructed simultaneously in five languages: Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English (which was to function as the source, or reference, language) [7]. The questionnaire was re-named ‘EQ-5D’ in 1995 and now comprises a family of questionnaires: the three-level EQ-5D-3L, the five-level EQ-5D-5L, and the youth version EQ-5D-Y.

EQ-5D was designed as a self-completed questionnaire to fulfil two functions: (i) to provide a descriptive profile of current health status; and (ii) to provide a way of assigning a single numerical value to each of the possible health states described by the descriptive system, for use in economic evaluations of health care [8]. The requirements for its design were that (i) the dimensions should be relevant to both patients and members of the general population; (ii) the descriptive system should be simple – with as few dimensions as possible, and as few levels as possible within each dimension; (iii) it should be short and easily self-completed in a range of settings, and simple enough not to require detailed instructions; and (iv) it should be reliable, valid, and able to identify changes in health status related to illness and health interventions.

2. Components

The EQ-5D essentially consists of two pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system (page 2 of the questionnaire) and the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (page 3 of the questionnaire) (Video: Explaining the EQ-5D in about Two and Half Minutes). As noted above, ‘EQ-5D’ is not an abbreviation and is the correct term to use when referring to the instrument. Sample versions in UK English can be viewed at https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/sample-demo/.

2.1. Descriptive system

The EQ-5D descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression. The number of levels in these dimensions differ in the EQ-5D-3L (three levels) and the EQ-5D-5L (five levels). The EQ-5D-Y has the same five dimensions, but they are worded more appropriately for young people.

2.1.1. EQ-5D-3L

In EQ-5D-3L, the five dimensions each have three response levels of severity. The mobility dimension ranges from ‘I have no problems walking about’ to ‘I am confined to bed’. The self-care dimension ranges from ‘I have no problems with self-care’ to ‘I am unable to wash or dress myself’. The usual activities dimension concerns work, study, housework, family, or leisure activities and ranges from ‘I have no problems doing my usual activities’ to ‘I am unable to do my usual activities’. The pain/discomfort dimension ranges from ‘I have no pain or discomfort’ to ‘I have extreme pain or discomfort’. The anxiety/depression dimension ranges from ‘I am not anxious or depressed’ to ‘I am extremely anxious or depressed’.

Respondents are asked to choose the statement in each dimension that best describes their health status on the day they are surveyed. Their responses are coded as a number (1, 2, or 3) that corresponds to the respective level of severity: 1 indicates no problems, 2 some problems, and 3 extreme problems. In this way, a person’s health state profile can be defined by a 5-digit number, ranging from 11111 (having no problems in any of the dimensions) to 33333 (having extreme problems in all the dimensions). The health state 12321 would indicate a person having no problems with mobility, having some problems with self-care, being unable to perform their usual activities, having some pain or discomfort, and not being anxious or depressed. In total, the EQ-5D-3L describes 243 (=35) potential health states [9].

2.1.2. EQ-5D-5L

EQ-5D-5L was introduced in 2009 with the aim of enhancing instrument sensitivity and providing respondents with the opportunity to provide a more detailed and accurate picture of their health. The EQ-5D-5L descriptive system uses the same five dimensions as the EQ-5D-3L but has two extra levels of severity in each dimension. The five levels in each dimension are worded as (1) ‘not /no problems’, (2) ‘slight problems’, (3) ‘moderate problems’, (4) ‘severe problems’, and (5) ‘unable to’ (mobility, self-care, usual activities), ‘extreme’ (pain/depression), or ‘extremely’ (anxiety/depression). A few changes in the wording of some levels were also made. For example, in the mobility dimension, the 3L term ‘confined to bed’ has been replaced with ‘unable to walk about’ in the 5L; and the first level of self-care in the 5L now refers to washing and dressing, to be consistent with the other levels. Because of the additional levels in EQ-5D-5L, the descriptive system describes 3125 (=55) potential health states [10].

2.1.3. EQ-5D-Y

The EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-Y) was introduced by the EuroQol Group in 2009 as a more suitable questionnaire for children and adolescents [11]. It is based on the EQ-5D-3L, but the wording has been modified to be more easily understood and relevant for younger people. The dimensions are: mobility (walking about); looking after myself; doing usual activities (e.g., going to school, hobbies, sports, playing, doing things with family and friends); having pain or discomfort; and feeling worried, sad, or unhappy. The levels for the first four dimensions are: ‘none/no problems’, ‘some (problems)’, and ‘a lot (of problems)’. The levels in the feeling worried, sad, or unhappy dimension are: ‘not’, ‘a bit’, and ‘very’. EQ-5D-Y is recommended for use with 8–11-year-olds and for 12–15-year-olds (although the adult version may be appropriate in the older age group, depending on study design; see Table 1 [[12]). For children aged 4–7 years, a proxy version should be used – i.e. a version of the questionnaire that is suitable for completion by a third party (e.g. a parent, caregiver, or health professional) on the child’s behalf.

2.2. EQ VAS

The second part of the questionnaire in all three versions of EQ-5D comprises a standard vertical 20-cm VAS that is calibrated from ‘the worst health you can imagine’ (scored 0) at its base to ‘the best health you can imagine’ (scored 100) at its apex. Respondents are asked to ‘mark an X on the scale to indicate how your health is TODAY’ and to write the number in an adjoining box.

This procedure makes it possible for respondents to provide a rating of their overall health on the day they complete the questionnaire. The VAS can also be used to assess changes in a patient’s perception of their own health over time. For example, a patient may rate their current health as 50 on the scale, but after a medical intervention the respondent’s rating may be 85, reflecting a substantial improvement in health status. When a group of patients completes the EQ-5D questionnaire before and after treatment, the change in self-rated health can be recorded from the VAS data.

3. EQ-5D versions

3.1. Modes of administration

EQ-5D is available in different formats depending on the mode of administration. The 3L, 5L, and Y versions can be self-completed on paper or by telephone or digitally, e.g., laptop/desktop, tablet, REDCap, interactive voice response (IVR), and smartphone/personal digital assistant (PDA). The EQ-5D can be hosted on local servers or on alternatives such as REDCap, LimeSurvey, Castor EDC, or Qualtrics platforms.

If people are unable to complete the EQ-5D themselves for any reason, e.g. due to ill-health or literacy problems, interviewer-administered versions are available for use in telephone, online, or face-to-face interviews.

It is sometimes appropriate to ask a caregiver (or proxy) to answer on behalf of people who cannot complete the questionnaire themselves (e.g. because they are too young, too ill, or have severe mental health problems or intellectual disability). The EQ-5D has two proxy versions: proxy version 1 asks the proxy to provide their own rating of the other person’s health, while proxy version 2 asks the proxy how they think the person being evaluated would describe his/her own health if they were able to complete the questionnaire.

3.2. Translations

EQ-5D is available in more than 200 languages. Translation of the EQ-5D into new languages is overseen by the EuroQol Group’s Version Management Committee (VMC) and is usually carried out in a collaboration with professional agencies with expertise in the cultural adaptation of PRO measures [13].

All translations follow a standard and closely monitored process that conforms to internationally recognised guidelines [14]. The main steps in the translation process are forward translation, back translation, and cognitive debriefing (Animation video: Translating Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Use Around the World - The Example of EQ-5D). The goal of translation is to produce an EQ-5D version that has the same meaning as the English source version. Furthermore, it must sound natural and be easily understood in the target language.

4. Value sets for EQ-5D health states

When a person completes the EQ-5D questionnaire, the descriptive system produces a 5-digit health status profile that represents that person’s level of reported problems on the five EQ-5D health dimensions. These profiles are usually referred to as ‘EQ-5D health states’. As noted above, EQ-5D-3L describes 243 potential health states while the EQ-5D-5L describes 3125 potential health states.

A numerical value can be attached to each EQ-5D health state to reflect how good or bad a health state is according to the preferences of the general population of a country/region. Health state values can also be referred to as EQ-5D ‘index values’ or ‘index scores’. The collection of index values for all possible EQ-5D states is called a value set. EQ-5D value sets are constructed at the national level, reflecting the belief that preferences for health can differ across populations.

Valuation research aims to measure people’s preferences with respect to health – in other words, how health is valued. This involves the participation of a representative sample of people from the general population in a standardised valuation experiment. In this experiment, participants are asked to value health by reviewing EQ-5D health states.

Because EQ-5D has values attached to its health states, it is widely used in the economic evaluation of health care interventions, where the convention is to measure health gains as value-weighted time using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) [15]. The values can also inform other research, such as studies in the burden of illness.

Various techniques can be used to assign a value to an EQ-5D state. The EuroQol Group has done extensive research on different methods of valuing EQ-5D health states (see the historical review below). Most EQ-5D value sets are based on the time trade-off (TTO) approach, used either alone or in combination with discrete choice experiments (DCE). EQ-5D-3L value sets using TTO are available for over 30 countries or regions [16]. EQ-5D-5L value sets using TTO (+ DCE) are available for many countries [17], and valuation studies are ongoing in further countries.

4.1. EQ-5D-3L value sets: VAS and TTO approaches

Initial EQ-5D-3L valuation research in the late 1980s investigated ranking, magnitude estimation, and VAS approaches as ways of obtaining values for health states and resulted in the choice of a VAS approach [18]. At that time, other methods such as TTO were in their infancy, or, as in the case of the standard gamble, had been little used in the health status context.

Investigation into alternative valuation methods continued [19], and in the early 1990s the TTO approach was used in the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) study carried out by the University of York in the UK. This generated an EQ-5D value set based on TTO values from the general public that could be used to generate QALYs. The MVH value set [20],[21] became widely applied in economic evaluations in the UK and other countries, and continues to be used today.

Over the following years, EQ-5D-3L value sets were produced for many countries using either TTO and/or VAS approaches [8]. Over time, however, TTO emerged as the method of first choice.

The EQ-net project of 1998–2001, which was funded by the Biomed programme of the European Commission, resulted in the establishment of TTO and VAS databases to facilitate international comparisons of health state values [22] [23].

In 2009, the MVH protocol for valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states was refined to improve the data collection process; this was referred to as the ‘Paris protocol’. This protocol has been used in a number of EQ-5D-3L valuation studies, including those of South Korea, China, France, Portugal, and Brazil [24].

The development of the EQ-5D-5L renewed interest in the methodology of valuing health. Until 5L value sets were produced, interim values for the EQ-5D-5L were made available using a ‘crosswalk’ approach based on a study in six countries, in which the EQ-5D-3L and 5L had been completed in parallel [25]. This meant that values for EQ-5D-5L health states could be derived from existing EQ-5D-3L value sets [26].

4.2. EQ-5D-3L value sets: EQ-VT combining composite TTP and DCE

Value sets for QALY calculations are required to range from 1 (representing full health) to 0 (representing dead), and it is generally accepted that very poor health states may be considered worse than being dead. Due to the recognised challenges of valuing states worse than death, the EuroQol Group initiated a programme of research to further investigate valuation of these states. This involved testing new methods for TTO, including multiple variants of ‘lead-time’ TTO [27] and ‘lag-time’ TTO [28] [29]. It should also be noted that in the 5L valuation procedure EuroQol continued to use TTO, but VAS was discarded and replaced by DCE.

With the introduction of 5L, the opportunity was taken to introduce a standardised protocol for the first time. This decision was based on multiple considerations. Variability in how value sets were produced had provide much information about what worked and what did not work in the valuation of health, but it limited the comparability of value sets. Moreover, valuation of 5L was considered more challenging than valuation of 3L – hence efforts to define best practice had to be renewed, to ensure high-quality data. Furthermore, the programme of work that followed enabled several open methodological questions to be addressed.

A key aspect in this research was the potential of computer-based technology to help guide the respondents through the valuation tasks. The programme led to a new TTO approach (the composite TTO; cTTO [30]) that removed the need for arbitrary rescaling of values for states worse than dead. Composite TTO uses the conventional approach for states considered better than dead, but lead-time TTO for states considered worse than dead [31]. At the same time, new approaches to health state valuation were being tested, such as DCEs [32] [33].

This work culminated in the EQ-VT (EuroQol Valuation Technology) protocol, which uses a standardised computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) to derive health preferences for EQ-5D-5L using cTTO and DCE [30]. The first valuation studies using this approach were conducted in Canada, China, England, the Netherlands, and Spain in 2012. Following several refinements, the current EQ-VT is labelled version 2.1 [34]. By September 2019, the EQ-VT had been used in 34 countries around the world [10].

4.3. EQ-5D-Y value sets

Due to the added difficulties of obtaining values for health states in paediatric populations, value sets for the EQ-5D-Y have taken longer to develop. In 2020, the EuroQol Group published an international valuation protocol for the youth version [35] [36] and the first EQ-5D-Y valuation study, for Slovenia, was published in 2021.[37] Further EQ-5D-Y valuation studies are underway in countries around the world. Note that EQ-5D-3L value sets should not be used to assign values to EQ-5D-Y health states. [38] [39]

5. EQ-5D data analysis

More detailed information on how to analyse EQ-5D data is available in a book [40] that describes various analytical approaches for the EQ-5D descriptive profiles, EQ VAS, and EQ-5D value sets.

6. Psychometric properties

The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L have been assessed for EQ-5D versions in many different health conditions, including cardiovascular disease [41] [42], mental health populations [43], aged care [44], skin conditions [45], cancer [46], and total knee arthroplasty [47].

The brevity of EQ-5D-3L is likely to be a major factor in its widespread use, but the three-level format can be a limitation in some clinical areas. The EQ-5D-3L descriptive system can be less sensitive to small and medium changes in health status [48], so it may be less able to detect change in some conditions [49] [50].

The 5L descriptive system has shown improved responsiveness compared to the 3L system, e.g. in a comparison of eight patient groups [25], osteoarthritis [51], and joint replacement [52], as well as acceptable psychometric properties in conditions such as stroke [53], chronic obstructive lung disease [54], and scoliosis [55]. Some studies have assessed the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L together [56].

The psychometric properties of EQ-5D-Y have been assessed in a variety of settings and conditions [35,[57]].

7. EQ-5D in population health studies

EQ-5D has been extensively utilised in population health studies, both at the national level and for subsections of a country’s population, such as a specific region. Data collected with EQ-5D can be used to assess and compare health status between groups of patients, between patients and the general population, or between the general populations of different countries. It can also be used to monitor changes in health status over time at population level.

Cross-country analyses of self-reported population health using EQ-5D data have been reported and subsequently updated [22,[58],[59]]. The first publication incorporated data from 15 countries [22], and the second from 24 countries [58]. Since then, EQ-5D-5L population norms have also been published for Japanese [60], German [61], and South Australian populations [62].

8. EQ-5D in economic evaluation

EQ-5D is the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaire in health economic evaluations [63]. EQ-5D can be used to derive a set of values that reflect people’s opinions of the relative importance of different health problems. These values can be used to derive QALYs for application in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluations.

In a review study of recommendations from national HTA agencies, EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) most frequently mentioned in HTA guidelines. The most commonly-cited MAUI (in 85% of pharmacoeconomic guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in cost-utility analysis in HTA [3].

9. References

  1. ^ Brooks R, Boye KS, Slaap B. EQ-5D: a plea for accurate nomenclature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00222-9. PMID: 32620995; PMCID: PMC7334333.
  2. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=eq-5d&filter=dates.1990-2020%2F12%2F21 (accessed 21st December 2020).
  3. ^ Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, Busschbach J, Boye KS. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245-1257. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8. PMID: 32514643; PMCID: PMC7561556.
  4. ^ https://euroqol.org
  5. ^ https:/euroqol.org/support/how-to-obtain-eq-5d/
  6. ^ EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. PMID: 10109801.
  7. ^ Brooks R. The EuroQol Group after 25 years. Springer, 2013. Available from: www.springeronline.com. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5158-3. ISBN: 978-94-007-5158-3
  8. ^ Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337-43. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087. PMID: 11491192.
  9. ^ EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L User Guide, 2018. Available from https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.
  10. ^ EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide, 2019. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.
  11. ^ Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Scalone L, Ravens-Sieberer U. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875-86. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y. PMID: 20405245; PMCID: PMC2892611.
  12. ^ EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-Y User Guide, Version 2.0, 2020. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides/.
  13. ^ Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17(1):70-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006. PMID: 24438719.
  14. ^ Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P; ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. PMID: 15804318.
  15. ^ Quality-adjusted life year
  16. ^ https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-3l-about/valuation
  17. ^ https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/valuation-standard-value-sets/
  18. ^ Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127-137. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5. PMID: 28194657; PMCID: PMC5343080.
  19. ^ Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. PMID: 10158943.
  20. ^ Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141-54. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N. PMID: 8733106.
  21. ^ Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. PMID: 9366889.
  22. ^ Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. (eds.) EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. EuroQol Group Monographs Volume 2. Springer, 2006. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-5511-0.  ISBN: 978-1-4020-5511-9.
  23. ^ Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. (eds). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Springer, 2003. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-0233-1. ISBN 978-94-017-0233-1.
  24. ^ Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993-1004. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1. PMID: 27084198; PMCID: PMC5023738.
  25. ^ Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. PMID: 23184421; PMCID: PMC3764313.
  26. ^ van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. PMID: 22867780.
  27. ^ Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393-402. doi: 10.1002/hec.1069. PMID: 16389652.
  28. ^ Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Tilling C, Wilkinson G, van Hout B. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517-32. doi: 10.1002/hec.2819. PMID: 22715069.
  29. ^ Attema AE, Versteegh MM, Oppe M, Brouwer WB, Stolk EA. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376-92. doi: 10.1002/hec.2804. PMID: 22396243.
  30. ^ Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002. PMID: 24969006.
  31. ^ Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14 Suppl 1:S5-13. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2. PMID: 23900660.
  32. ^ Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x. PMID: 20825618.
  33. ^ Discrete choice.
  34. ^ Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010. PMID: 30661630.
  35. ^ Kreimeier S, Greiner W. EQ-5D-Y as a Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument for Children and Adolescents: The Instrument's Characteristics, Development, Current Use, and Challenges of Developing Its Value Set. Value Health. 2019;22(1):31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.001. PMID: 30661631.
  36. ^ Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Stolk E, Shah K, Kreimeier S, Rivero-Arias O, Devlin N. International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(7):653-663. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3. PMID: 32297224.
  37. ^ Prevolnik Rupel V, Ogorevc M; IMPACT HTA HRQoL Group. EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00994-4. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33565048.
  38. ^ Kreimeier S, Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Cole A, Devlin N, Herdman M, Mulhern B, Shah KK, Stolk E, Rivero-Arias O, Greiner W. Valuation of EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Health States: The Impact of Wording and Perspective. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1291-1298. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.002. PMID: 30442276.
  39. ^ Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, Olivares PR, Greiner W. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2519-39. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0971-1. PMID: 25894060; PMCID: PMC4564451.
  40. ^ Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ-5D Data. Springer, 2020. Open Access. Available from: www.springeronline.com. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47622-9. ISBN 978-3-030-47622-9.
  41. ^ Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-13. PMID: 20109189; PMCID: PMC2824714.
  42. ^ Batóg P, Rencz F, Péntek M, Gulácsi L, Filipiak KJ, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, Brodszky V, Baji P, Závada J, Petrova G, Rotar A, Golicki D. EQ-5D studies in cardiovascular diseases in eight Central and Eastern European countries: a systematic review of the literature. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(5):860-870. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0033. PMID: 29350378.
  43. ^ Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Jones ML, Paisley S, O'Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G. 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. doi: 10.3310/hta18340. PMID: 24857402; PMCID: PMC4781324.
  44. ^ Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Nov;13:179. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0372-8. PMID: 26553129; PMCID: PMC4640110.
  45. ^ Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L. EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):927-939. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0638-9. PMID: 25358263; PMCID: PMC4646948.
  46. ^ Schwenkglenks M, Matter-Walstra K. Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):207-219. doi:10.1586/14737167.2016.1146594. PMID: 26808097.
  47. ^ Shim J, Hamilton DF. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 Global Health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(7):832-837. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1. PMID: 31256677; PMCID: PMC6616061.
  48. ^ 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). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. PMID: 21479777; PMCID: PMC3220807.
  49. ^ Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(11):1137-54. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6. PMID: 26040242; PMCID: PMC4609224.
  50. ^ Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011;14(2):390-399. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002. PMID: 21402307.
  51. ^ Bilbao A, García-Pérez L, Arenaza JC, García I, Ariza-Cardiel G, Trujillo-Martín E, Forjaz MJ, Martín-Fernández J. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(11):2897-2908. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x. PMID: 29978346.
  52. ^ Jin X, Al Sayah F, Ohinmaa A, Marshall DA, Johnson JA. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients following total hip or knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(9):2409-2417. doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02200-1. PMID: 31089988.
  53. ^ Chen P, Lin KC, Liing RJ, Wu CY, Chen CL, Chang KC. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1585-1596. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z. PMID: 26714699.
  54. ^ Nolan CM, Longworth L, Lord J, Canavan JL, Jones SE, Kon SS, Man WD. The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax. 2016;71(6):493-500. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782. PMID: 27030578; PMCID: PMC4893131.
  55. ^ Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Lau ST, Cheung JPY. Responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(2):278-285. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5330-1. PMID: 28993884.
  56. ^ Qian X, Tan RL, Chuang LH, Luo N. Measurement Properties of Commonly Used Generic Preference-Based Measures in East and South-East Asia: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):159-170. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00854-w. PMID: 31761995; PMCID: PMC7081654.
  57. ^ Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Olivares PR, Scalone L, Greiner W. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887-97. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x. PMID: 20401552; PMCID: PMC2892614.
  58. ^ Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J, editors. Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht (NL): Springer; 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1. PMID: 29787044.
  59. ^ Janssen MF, Szende A, Cabases J, Ramos-Goñi JM, Vilagut G, König HH. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(2):205-216. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0955-5. PMID: 29445941; PMCID: PMC6438939.
  60. ^ Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707-19. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2. PMID: 26303761; PMCID: PMC4759213.
  61. ^ Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stöbel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brähler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):443-447. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2. PMID: 23921597.
  62. ^ McCaffrey N, Kaambwa B, Currow DC, Ratcliffe J. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0. PMID: 27644755; PMCID: PMC5028927.
  63. ^ Wisløff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):367-75. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z. PMID: 24477679; PMCID: PMC3964297.