SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 16
Improved methods for
  valuing EQ-5D-5L



       Professor Nancy Devlin
          ndevlin@ohe.org
        Director of Research
Office of Health Economics, London


   Spanish Health Economics Association
              June 24, 2010
Content

•       Why are new methods required?
    –      EQ-5D-5L
    –      Problems with conventional methods
    –      Opportunities presented by computer-aided methods
•       LT-TTO
•       Results from ongoing research
•       DCE + VAS
•       Preparing for national EQ-5D-5L value sets



                       Spanish Health Economics Association
                                  June 24, 2010
Why develop new methods?
                              (i) EQ-5D-5L
• ‘Cross-over studies’ will provide interim values, but ultimately a
  value set based on preferences directly elicited for EQ-5D-5L
  states is required.
     Challenges in valuing EQ-5D-5L: 5L
  100%
          3L    5L    3L     5L   3L         3L   5L    3L     5L

 • More states to be valued (55 = 3125, compared with 35 = 243)
   80%
     • How best to elicit preferences for sufficient states across
% problem




   60% descriptive system, to provide an adequate basis for
     the
     modelling?
   40%
     • Greater ‘subtlety’ between levels/labels: potential challenge
   20% methods where states are considered ‘one by one’
     for
 • A ‘mixed methods’ approach may have more merit than reliance
    0%
 on TTO alone
            Mobility




                                                      discomfort
                        Selfcare




                                      activities




                                                                   depression
                                                                    Anxiety /
                                        Usual




                                                         Pain /
                        Spanish Health Economics Association
                                   June 24, 2010
Why develop new methods?
                    (ii) Addressing known problems

• The MVH protocol has come to be the de facto EQ-5D valuation
  protocol.
• Yet is subject to known, non-trivial problems
• Substantial issues remain – principal among which is the
  valuation of states worse than dead (< 0).
   – The ‘standard’ TTO protocol cannot elicit values < 0
   – A different method is required - meaning values > 0 and < 0
     are non-comparable
   – the method for values < 0 yields extreme values, requiring
     post hoc transformation (eg. to -1)


                    Spanish Health Economics Association
                               June 24, 2010
Conventional TTO
Conventional TTO for state better than dead U(H) > 0

                              full health
                    Life A


                             Hi
                    Life B                                  duration in Hi = 10 years



Conventional TTO for states worse than dead U (H) <0

                             Hi               full health
                    Life A


                                    Immediate death
                    Life B



                         Spanish Health Economics Association
                                    June 24, 2010
Why develop new methods?
                  (iii) Exploiting new technologies
• Digital aids have largely replaced physical ‘props’ and
  ‘prompts’ to valuation tasks.
• Digital aids do not just replicate physical props, but offer
  greater functionality, e.g.
   – Built in randomisation procedures re: states and tasks
   – Automated iterative procedures (greater consistency
     between interviewers; less human error in prompting and
     recording participant responses)
   – Time stamping all responses
   – Central data capture and storage; eliminating data entry

                   Spanish Health Economics Association
                              June 24, 2010
Lead Time TTO (LT-TTO)
                          ‘Lead time’ TTO (state happens to be better than dead)

                                lead time        full health
                 Life A


                                 lead time                     Hi
                 Life B                                                            duration in Hi = 10 years


                     ‘Lead time’ TTO (state happens to be worse than dead)
                                lead time
                 Life A


                                 lead time                     Hi
                 Life B                                                       duration in Hi = 10 years


•   Approach described by Robinson and Spencer (2006) Health Economics.
•   LT-TTO shown to be feasible - Devlin et al (2010) Health Economics.
•   A ‘lag time’ equivalent is also possible: order of states in Life B reversed – Tilling et al
    (2010) Medical Decision Making.
                                 Spanish Health Economics Association
                                            June 24, 2010
Refining/testing the LT-TTO: current
                                    research
 • 1, 5, 10 year durations; lead: duration: 2:1, 5:1
 • n = 208 participants, blocked into groups defined by pairs of variants/ordering
 and one of two sets of states.
 • Each participant valued 5 EQ-5D states using two variants i.e. 10 TTO tasks
 • Data collection: May/June 2010.


                     [a]     [b]      [c]      [d]           Group   Variant
Duration (years):    10       1        5        5                    pairs
Lead time (years):   20       5       10                     1       (a) + (b)
Lag (years)                                    10            2       (a) + (c)
Ratio* of            2:1     5:1      2:1      2:1           3       (b) + (c)
lead(lag):duration                                           4       (c) + (d)



                           Spanish Health Economics Association
                                      June 24, 2010
Initial results (i):
                                   values by ‘category’, by variant
                      By variant

                                                                                     Categories:
                                   1. Full health
                            2. Better than dead                                      1. U = 1 (‘non-trading’)
                          3. Equivalent to dead
a                     4. Valued using lead time
     5. valuation by extension and/or reduction
                                                                                     2. U > 0 and < 1
    6. Refuses any trade involving health state                                      3. U = 0
                                      9. missing
                                   1. Full health
                            2. Better than dead
                                                                                     4. U < 0
                          3. Equivalent to dead                                      ( & valued within the
b                     4. Valued using lead time
     5. valuation by extension and/or reduction
    6. Refuses any trade involving health state                                      available lead/lag
                                      9. missing
                                   1. Full health                                    time)
                            2. Better than dead                                      5. U < 0
                          3. Equivalent to dead
c                     4. Valued using lead time
     5. valuation by extension and/or reduction                                      (& valued using
    6. Refuses any trade involving health state
                                      9. missing                                     extended led/lag
                                   1. Full health
                            2. Better than dead                                      procedure)
                          3. Equivalent to dead
d                     4. Valued using lead time
     5. valuation by extension and/or reduction
                                                                                     6. ‘Refuses trade’
    6. Refuses any trade involving health state                                      7. Missing
                                      9. missing

                                                    0   100   200 300    400   500
                                                                 Count               Nb: x-axis shows
                                                                                     frequency, not %
                                    Spanish Health Economics Association
                                               June 24, 2010
Initial results (ii): distribution of values
           (all variants); and exhausting lead time,
                            state 33333

                                    80



                                                     Variant   % who exhaust
                                    60
                                                               lead time in
                                                               valuing 33333




                                         Frequency
                                    40               a         0.21
                                                     b         0.20
                                    20               c         0.18
                                                     d         0.28
                                    0
-6   -4      -2         0       2
          valuation




                      Spanish Health Economics Association
                                 June 24, 2010
Initial results (iii):
                       mean values by state by variant

Mean values, including ‘extended lead’ values, but excluding ‘missing’ values

                                     LT-TTO variants
EQ-5D state           a              b             c                d
11112               0.77           0.57          0.77              0.81
11122               0.67           0.36          0.61              0.56
11211               0.87           0.63          0.80              0.80
12111               0.79           0.71          0.77              0.76
22121               0.52           0.47          0.63              0.68
23232              -0.41           -1.35        -0.54             -0.26
33333               -1.0           -3.92        -1.18             -1.10




                           Spanish Health Economics Association
                                      June 24, 2010
Initial results (iv):
                              distribution of values > 0 by variant

                                a                             b
          15
          10
          5
          0
Density




                                c                             d
          15
          10
          5
          0




               0                .5           1     0          .5      1
                                           valuation
          Graphs by Variant



                               Spanish Health Economics Association
                                          June 24, 2010
Discrete Choice Modeling

•   DCEs widely used in health services research in the UK
•   The methods are grounded in theory eg. Thurstone (1927), through to
    McFadden (1974, 1989).
•   Based on the idea of choices reflecting trade-offs and underlying
    preferences (NICE considers this important in its choice of valuations –
    NICE 2008)

•   Participants are asked to choose from pairs of scenarios (EQ-5D profiles):
    simple to complete.
•   Potential advantages in valuing EQ-5D-5L: feasible for self-completion; each
    participant can complete many DCE valuation tasks.
•   But problems ‘anchoring’ values at 0 and 1
•   DCE to generate preference data to supplement TTO data
•   Strength of preference data may assist: DCE accompanied by VAS
•   Alternative ways of modelling these data will be explored.

                        Spanish Health Economics Association
                                   June 24, 2010
Experimentation: DCE +VAS

Compare health states A and B. Imagine for each health state that you are in that state
yourself.



                             A                                               B
     Confined to bed                                    No problems in walking about
     Some problems washing or dressing myself
                                                        Unable to wash or dress myself
     Some problems with performing my usual
     activities                                         Unable to perform my usual activities

     No pain or discomfort                              Extreme pain or discomfort
     Not anxious or depressed                           Extremely anxious or depressed

                  Which health state is best in your opinion, A or B?
                                        Tick the box

           A                                                                 B


                                 Spanish Health Economics Association
                                            June 24, 2010
The best health
                                                               you can imagine
                    VAS Task                                               100
                                                                            95
                                                                            90
                        A                                                   85

Confined to bed                                                             80
                                                                            75
Some problems washing or dressing myself
                                                                            70
Some problems with performing my usual
                                                                            65
activities
                                                                            60
No pain or discomfort
                                                                            55
Not anxious or depressed
                                                                            50
                                                                            45
                        B                                                   40

No problems in walking about                                                35
                                                                            30
Unable to wash or dress myself
                                                                            25
Unable to perform my usual activities
                                                                            20
Extreme pain or discomfort
                                                                            15
Extremely anxious or depressed                                              10
                                                                            5
                            Spanish Health Economics Association          0
                                       June 24, 2010          The worst health
                                                                 you can imagine
Preparing for EQ-5D-5L value sets

– Issues with methodology remain
– Some of which we hope to work out prior to EQ-5D-5L
  value set studies
– 4-country study: 2010/2011
– EQ-5D-5L value sets: 2011/12




               Spanish Health Economics Association
                          June 24, 2010

More Related Content

Similar to Nancy Devlin

Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysis
Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysisPharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysis
Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysisMohammed Mohammed
 
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...Office of Health Economics
 
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015ipposi
 
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients Health state utilities of periodontitis patients
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients UKM
 
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...John Brazier
 
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptx
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptxFundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptx
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptxMohsin Hassan Alvi
 
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwer
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwerEupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwer
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwerDiseaseprevention
 
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutions
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutionsThe drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutions
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutionsOECD Governance
 
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-dia
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-diaPresentation unovate 19 10-11-dia
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-diajvvanmarken
 
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.ppt
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.pptlect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.ppt
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.pptDhanang Nugraha
 
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and EquityEquity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and EquityKerry Sheppard
 
Mecc launch 18 05 12
Mecc launch 18 05 12Mecc launch 18 05 12
Mecc launch 18 05 12nhs_local
 
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomesUnderstanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomesCochrane.Collaboration
 
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2cheweb1
 

Similar to Nancy Devlin (20)

Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysis
Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysisPharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysis
Pharmacoeconomics Cost utility analysis
 
7.CUA.pptx
7.CUA.pptx7.CUA.pptx
7.CUA.pptx
 
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...
Valuing health states associated with chronic disorders of consciousness shah...
 
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015
HTA Training - Prof Cathal Walsh - March 27th 2015
 
Measuring health
Measuring healthMeasuring health
Measuring health
 
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients Health state utilities of periodontitis patients
Health state utilities of periodontitis patients
 
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...
Eliciting societal preference for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement ...
 
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptx
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptxFundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptx
Fundamentals of Health Economics - Final Presentation.pptx
 
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwer
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwerEupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwer
Eupha 1.introductionby wernerbrouwer
 
Health economics what is it
Health economics what is itHealth economics what is it
Health economics what is it
 
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutions
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutionsThe drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutions
The drivers of public health spending: integrating policies and institutions
 
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-dia
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-diaPresentation unovate 19 10-11-dia
Presentation unovate 19 10-11-dia
 
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.ppt
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.pptlect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.ppt
lect_3_4_schwartzman_economic_analyses_tb_course_2015.ppt
 
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and EquityEquity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
 
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and EquityEquity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
Equity Adjusted QALYs? QALYs and Equity
 
Difference-in-Difference Methods
Difference-in-Difference MethodsDifference-in-Difference Methods
Difference-in-Difference Methods
 
Tackling unhealthy diets and obesity
Tackling unhealthy diets and obesityTackling unhealthy diets and obesity
Tackling unhealthy diets and obesity
 
Mecc launch 18 05 12
Mecc launch 18 05 12Mecc launch 18 05 12
Mecc launch 18 05 12
 
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomesUnderstanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes
Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes
 
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2
Baker what to do when people disagree che york seminar jan 2019 v2
 

More from Asociación de Economía de la Salud (20)

Memoria AES 2010 - 2011
Memoria AES 2010 - 2011 Memoria AES 2010 - 2011
Memoria AES 2010 - 2011
 
Memoria 2010
Memoria 2010Memoria 2010
Memoria 2010
 
Paul schreyer
Paul schreyerPaul schreyer
Paul schreyer
 
Mike pringle
Mike pringleMike pringle
Mike pringle
 
Robert Kaestner
Robert KaestnerRobert Kaestner
Robert Kaestner
 
Juan Merlo
Juan MerloJuan Merlo
Juan Merlo
 
Michael Herdman
Michael HerdmanMichael Herdman
Michael Herdman
 
Eduardo Sanchez Iriso
Eduardo Sanchez IrisoEduardo Sanchez Iriso
Eduardo Sanchez Iriso
 
Mike Pringle
Mike PringleMike Pringle
Mike Pringle
 
Nicholas Mays
Nicholas MaysNicholas Mays
Nicholas Mays
 
David Colin Thome
David Colin ThomeDavid Colin Thome
David Colin Thome
 
Antoni Montserrat
Antoni MontserratAntoni Montserrat
Antoni Montserrat
 
Olga Delgado
Olga DelgadoOlga Delgado
Olga Delgado
 
Claire Hulme
Claire HulmeClaire Hulme
Claire Hulme
 
Manuel Bravo
Manuel Bravo Manuel Bravo
Manuel Bravo
 
Jaime Pinilla
Jaime PinillaJaime Pinilla
Jaime Pinilla
 
Jaime Prats
Jaime PratsJaime Prats
Jaime Prats
 
Juan José Ganuza
Juan José GanuzaJuan José Ganuza
Juan José Ganuza
 
Enrique Gavilan
Enrique GavilanEnrique Gavilan
Enrique Gavilan
 
Paloma Fernández
Paloma FernándezPaloma Fernández
Paloma Fernández
 

Nancy Devlin

  • 1. Improved methods for valuing EQ-5D-5L Professor Nancy Devlin ndevlin@ohe.org Director of Research Office of Health Economics, London Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 2. Content • Why are new methods required? – EQ-5D-5L – Problems with conventional methods – Opportunities presented by computer-aided methods • LT-TTO • Results from ongoing research • DCE + VAS • Preparing for national EQ-5D-5L value sets Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 3. Why develop new methods? (i) EQ-5D-5L • ‘Cross-over studies’ will provide interim values, but ultimately a value set based on preferences directly elicited for EQ-5D-5L states is required. Challenges in valuing EQ-5D-5L: 5L 100% 3L 5L 3L 5L 3L 3L 5L 3L 5L • More states to be valued (55 = 3125, compared with 35 = 243) 80% • How best to elicit preferences for sufficient states across % problem 60% descriptive system, to provide an adequate basis for the modelling? 40% • Greater ‘subtlety’ between levels/labels: potential challenge 20% methods where states are considered ‘one by one’ for • A ‘mixed methods’ approach may have more merit than reliance 0% on TTO alone Mobility discomfort Selfcare activities depression Anxiety / Usual Pain / Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 4. Why develop new methods? (ii) Addressing known problems • The MVH protocol has come to be the de facto EQ-5D valuation protocol. • Yet is subject to known, non-trivial problems • Substantial issues remain – principal among which is the valuation of states worse than dead (< 0). – The ‘standard’ TTO protocol cannot elicit values < 0 – A different method is required - meaning values > 0 and < 0 are non-comparable – the method for values < 0 yields extreme values, requiring post hoc transformation (eg. to -1) Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 5. Conventional TTO Conventional TTO for state better than dead U(H) > 0 full health Life A Hi Life B duration in Hi = 10 years Conventional TTO for states worse than dead U (H) <0 Hi full health Life A Immediate death Life B Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 6. Why develop new methods? (iii) Exploiting new technologies • Digital aids have largely replaced physical ‘props’ and ‘prompts’ to valuation tasks. • Digital aids do not just replicate physical props, but offer greater functionality, e.g. – Built in randomisation procedures re: states and tasks – Automated iterative procedures (greater consistency between interviewers; less human error in prompting and recording participant responses) – Time stamping all responses – Central data capture and storage; eliminating data entry Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 7. Lead Time TTO (LT-TTO) ‘Lead time’ TTO (state happens to be better than dead) lead time full health Life A lead time Hi Life B duration in Hi = 10 years ‘Lead time’ TTO (state happens to be worse than dead) lead time Life A lead time Hi Life B duration in Hi = 10 years • Approach described by Robinson and Spencer (2006) Health Economics. • LT-TTO shown to be feasible - Devlin et al (2010) Health Economics. • A ‘lag time’ equivalent is also possible: order of states in Life B reversed – Tilling et al (2010) Medical Decision Making. Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 8. Refining/testing the LT-TTO: current research • 1, 5, 10 year durations; lead: duration: 2:1, 5:1 • n = 208 participants, blocked into groups defined by pairs of variants/ordering and one of two sets of states. • Each participant valued 5 EQ-5D states using two variants i.e. 10 TTO tasks • Data collection: May/June 2010. [a] [b] [c] [d] Group Variant Duration (years): 10 1 5 5 pairs Lead time (years): 20 5 10 1 (a) + (b) Lag (years) 10 2 (a) + (c) Ratio* of 2:1 5:1 2:1 2:1 3 (b) + (c) lead(lag):duration 4 (c) + (d) Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 9. Initial results (i): values by ‘category’, by variant By variant Categories: 1. Full health 2. Better than dead 1. U = 1 (‘non-trading’) 3. Equivalent to dead a 4. Valued using lead time 5. valuation by extension and/or reduction 2. U > 0 and < 1 6. Refuses any trade involving health state 3. U = 0 9. missing 1. Full health 2. Better than dead 4. U < 0 3. Equivalent to dead ( & valued within the b 4. Valued using lead time 5. valuation by extension and/or reduction 6. Refuses any trade involving health state available lead/lag 9. missing 1. Full health time) 2. Better than dead 5. U < 0 3. Equivalent to dead c 4. Valued using lead time 5. valuation by extension and/or reduction (& valued using 6. Refuses any trade involving health state 9. missing extended led/lag 1. Full health 2. Better than dead procedure) 3. Equivalent to dead d 4. Valued using lead time 5. valuation by extension and/or reduction 6. ‘Refuses trade’ 6. Refuses any trade involving health state 7. Missing 9. missing 0 100 200 300 400 500 Count Nb: x-axis shows frequency, not % Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 10. Initial results (ii): distribution of values (all variants); and exhausting lead time, state 33333 80 Variant % who exhaust 60 lead time in valuing 33333 Frequency 40 a 0.21 b 0.20 20 c 0.18 d 0.28 0 -6 -4 -2 0 2 valuation Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 11. Initial results (iii): mean values by state by variant Mean values, including ‘extended lead’ values, but excluding ‘missing’ values LT-TTO variants EQ-5D state a b c d 11112 0.77 0.57 0.77 0.81 11122 0.67 0.36 0.61 0.56 11211 0.87 0.63 0.80 0.80 12111 0.79 0.71 0.77 0.76 22121 0.52 0.47 0.63 0.68 23232 -0.41 -1.35 -0.54 -0.26 33333 -1.0 -3.92 -1.18 -1.10 Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 12. Initial results (iv): distribution of values > 0 by variant a b 15 10 5 0 Density c d 15 10 5 0 0 .5 1 0 .5 1 valuation Graphs by Variant Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 13. Discrete Choice Modeling • DCEs widely used in health services research in the UK • The methods are grounded in theory eg. Thurstone (1927), through to McFadden (1974, 1989). • Based on the idea of choices reflecting trade-offs and underlying preferences (NICE considers this important in its choice of valuations – NICE 2008) • Participants are asked to choose from pairs of scenarios (EQ-5D profiles): simple to complete. • Potential advantages in valuing EQ-5D-5L: feasible for self-completion; each participant can complete many DCE valuation tasks. • But problems ‘anchoring’ values at 0 and 1 • DCE to generate preference data to supplement TTO data • Strength of preference data may assist: DCE accompanied by VAS • Alternative ways of modelling these data will be explored. Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 14. Experimentation: DCE +VAS Compare health states A and B. Imagine for each health state that you are in that state yourself. A B Confined to bed No problems in walking about Some problems washing or dressing myself Unable to wash or dress myself Some problems with performing my usual activities Unable to perform my usual activities No pain or discomfort Extreme pain or discomfort Not anxious or depressed Extremely anxious or depressed Which health state is best in your opinion, A or B? Tick the box A B Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010
  • 15. The best health you can imagine VAS Task 100 95 90 A 85 Confined to bed 80 75 Some problems washing or dressing myself 70 Some problems with performing my usual 65 activities 60 No pain or discomfort 55 Not anxious or depressed 50 45 B 40 No problems in walking about 35 30 Unable to wash or dress myself 25 Unable to perform my usual activities 20 Extreme pain or discomfort 15 Extremely anxious or depressed 10 5 Spanish Health Economics Association 0 June 24, 2010 The worst health you can imagine
  • 16. Preparing for EQ-5D-5L value sets – Issues with methodology remain – Some of which we hope to work out prior to EQ-5D-5L value set studies – 4-country study: 2010/2011 – EQ-5D-5L value sets: 2011/12 Spanish Health Economics Association June 24, 2010