Background and Objective. The generic preference-based measures (GPBMs) of health have been widely used to obtain health utility scores for calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for economic evaluations. It has been recognized that GPBMs may miss relevant or important dimensions of health for some specific medical conditions. The objective of this study is to explore the effect of extending the current EQ-5D descriptive system by adding a sleep dimension. Methods. A new instrument, EQ-5D+Sleep, is proposed by adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D. Based on an orthogonal design, 18 EQ-5D+Sleep states and EQ-5D states were selected and a valuation study was undertaken whereby 160 members of the generic public in South Yorkshire, UK, were interviewed using time tradeoff (TTO). Econometric models have been fitted to the data. Two null hypotheses were tested: 1) the coefficient for the sleep dimension is not significant; and 2) the inclusion of the sleep dimension has no impact on the way people value the original dimensions of EQ-5D. Results and Conclusions. The results support these two null hypotheses. There seems to be no benefit to adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D. Research is required to explore the method of adding dimensions to existing descriptive systems of health.
DowieJ. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ. 2002;11(1):1–8.
2.
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: NICE; 2004.
3.
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: NICE; 2008.
4.
BrooksR. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
5.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.
6.
FeenyDFurlongWTorranceGW. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.
7.
GruttersJPCJooreMAvan der HorstFVerschuureHDreschlerWAAnteunisLJC. Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(8):1439–49.
8.
ToshJBrazierJEvansPLongworthL. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:118–27.
9.
EspallarguesMCzoski-MurrayCJBansbackNJ. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4016–23.
10.
RevickiDALeidyNKBrennan-DiemerFThompsonCTogiasA. Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(8):693–702.
11.
TorranceGWKeresteciMACaseyRWRosnerAJRyanNBretonMC. Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):349–59.
12.
YangYBrazierJTsuchiyaACoyneK. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12(1):159–66.
13.
BrazierJCzoski-MurrayCRobertsJBrownMSymondsTKelleherC. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):113.
14.
BrazierJRowenDMavranezouiITsuchiyaAYoungTYangY. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition specific measures (and other patient based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–114.
15.
GudexC. Are we lacking a dimension of energy in the Euroqol instrument?Paper presented at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, Lund, Sweden, 17 October 1991.
16.
KrabbePFMStouthardMEAEssink-BotMLBonselGJ. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multiattribute health-status classification system. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293–301.
17.
WolfsCAGDirksenCDKesselsAWillemsDVerheyFRJSeverensJL. Performance of the EQ-5 D and the EQ-5 D+ C in elderly patients with cognitive impairments. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):33.
18.
GroegerJAZijlstraFRHDijkDJ. Sleep quantity, sleep difficulties and their perceived consequences in a representative sample of some 2000 British adults. J Sleep Res. 2004;13(4):359–71.
KahnemanDKruegerABSchkadeDASchwarzNStoneAA. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science. 2004;306(5702):1776–80.
21.
CarbonellA. Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. J Public Econ. 2005;89(5–6):997–1019.
22.
YokoyamaESaitoYKaneitaY. Association between subjective well-being and sleep among the elderly in Japan. Sleep Med. 2008;9(2):157–64.
23.
SintonenH. The 15D-Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life, II: Feasibility, Reliability and Validity of Its Valuation System. Melbourne, Australia: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation;1995.
24.
HawthorneGRichardsonJOsborneR. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):209–24.
25.
YangYBrazierJETsuchiyaAYoungTA. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(2):281–91.
26.
World Health Organization. World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOWoL-100). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1995.
27.
GudexC. Time Trade-Off User Manual: Props and Self-Completion Methods. University of York, York, UK: Centre for Health Economics;1994.
28.
KindP. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. Quality of life and PharmacoEconomics in clinical trials. Second edition, edited by SpikerB. Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Philadelphia1996;191–201.
29.
DolanP. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
30.
McCabeCJStevensKJBrazierJE. Utility scores for the Health Utilities Index Mark 2: an empirical assessment of alternative mapping functions. Med Care. 2005;43(6):627–35.
31.
DolanP. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
32.
TsuchiyaAIkedaSIkegamiN. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–53.
33.
ShawJWJohnsonJACoonsSJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.
34.
PaternosterRBrameRMazerollePPiqueroA. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology. 1998;36:859–66.
35.
CloggCCPetkovaEHaritouA. Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol. 1995;100(5):1261–93.
36.
BrazierJRowenDTsuchiyaAYangYYoungTA. The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(2):245–53.
