Search

Background: Valuations of health states were affected by the wording of the two instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) and by the perspective taken (child or adult).Objectives: There is a growing demand for value sets for the EQ-5D-Y (EQ-5D instrument for younger populations). Given the similarities between EQ-5D-Y and EQ-5D-3L, we investigated whether valuations of health states were affected by the differences in wording between the two instruments and by the perspective taken in the valuation exercise (child or adult).Study Design: Respondents were randomly assigned to EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y (instrument) and further into two groups that either valued health states for an adult or for a 10-year-old child (perspective). The valuation tasks were composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and discrete choice experiments (DCE), including comparisons with death (DCE + death). Members of the adult general population in four countries (Germany, Netherlands, Spain, England) participated in computer-assisted personal interviews.Methods: Two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc tests were used to compare C-TTO responses and chi-square tests were conducted to compare DCE + death valuations.Results: A significant interaction effect between instrument and perspective for C-TTO responses was found. Significant differences by perspective (adult and child) occurred only for the EQ-5D-3L. Significant differences in values between instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y) occurred only for the adult perspective. Both significant results were confirmed by the DCE + death results. When comparing EQ-5D-3L for adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y for child perspective, values were also significantly different.Conclusions: The results identified an interaction effect between wording of the instrument and perspective on elicited values, suggesting that current EQ-5D-3L value sets should not be employed to assign values to EQ-5D-Y health states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]