Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec;40(Suppl 2):217-229.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01143-9. Epub 2022 May 23.

EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany

Simone Kreimeier  1 , David Mott  2 , Kristina Ludwig  3 , Wolfgang Greiner  3 ; IMPACT HTA HRQoL Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany

Simone Kreimeier et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Dec.

Erratum in

  • Correction to: EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany.
    Kreimeier S, Mott D, Ludwig K, Greiner W; IMPACT HTA HRQoL Group. Kreimeier S, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Dec;40(Suppl 2):231. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01206-x. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022. PMID: 36229568 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Demand is increasing for youth-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures for inclusion in evaluations of healthcare interventions for children and adolescents. The EQ-5D-Youth (EQ-5D-Y) has the potential to become such a preference-based measure.

Objective: This study applied the recently published EQ-5D-Y valuation protocol to develop a German EQ-5D-Y value set and explored the differences between values given to youth health by parents and non-parents.

Methods: To elicit EQ-5D-Y health state preferences, a representative sample of 1030 adults of the general population completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) online survey, and 215 adults participated in face-to-face interviews applying composite time trade-off (cTTO). Respondents were asked to consider a 10-year-old child living in the health states. DCE data were modelled using a mixed logit model. To derive the value set, DCE latent scale values were anchored onto adjusted mean cTTO values using a linear mapping approach.

Results: Adult respondents considered pain/discomfort and feeling worried/sad/unhappy as the two most important dimensions in terms of youth health. Adjusted mean cTTO values ranged from - 0.350 for health state 33333 to 0.970 for health state 21111. The EQ-5D-Y value set showed a logical order for all parameter estimates, and predicted values ranged from - 0.283 to 1. Differences in preferences by parental status were mainly observed for cTTO results, where mean values were larger for parents than for non-parents.

Conclusions: Applying the valuation protocol, a German EQ-5D-Y value set with internally consistent coefficients was developed. This enables the instrument to be used in economic evaluations of paediatric healthcare interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Simone Kreimeier, David Mott, Kristina Ludwig, and Wolfgang Greiner, as well as Valentina Prevolnik Rupel and Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi (members of the IMPACT HTA HRQoL Group), are members of the EuroQol Group. There are no other conflicts of interest. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Utility decrements of German EQ-5D-Y value set. AD feeling worried/sad/unhappy, MO mobility, PD having pain/discomfort, SC looking after myself, UA doing usual activities
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of adjusted mean utilities from the composite time trade-off task, by parental status. Mean differences; ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. 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;21:1245–1257. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kwon J, Kim SW, Ungar WJ, Tsiplova K, Madan J, Petrou S. Patterns, trends and methodological associations in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:1705–1724. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02121-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen G, Ratcliffe J. A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1013–1028. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0286-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ungar WJ, Gerber A. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2010. pp. 3–32.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources