Do EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets have common properties, and how do they compare to EQ-5D-5L value sets?

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation protocol, a considerable number of EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets have been published. This provides an opportunity to explore the differences and similarities between EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets across countries, and their similarity to their EQ-5D-5L counterparts. METHODS: EQ-5D-Y-3L value set publications for 11 countries identified key methodological, sampling and value set characteristics. Similarity between value sets was assessed using kernel density plots and other key characteristics. Preference patterns between groups of value sets were explored. EQ-5D-Y-3L value set properties were compared with those of EQ-5D-5L value sets from the same country. RESULTS: All EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation studies used the same DCE design. Six studies used expanded health state designs in the composite Time Trade Off. Analytical strategies differed between studies. Values for state 33333 ranged from - 0.691 (Slovenia) to 0.289 (Japan); the number of negative values ranged from 0 to 21%. Pain/discomfort level 3 received the largest weight in all EQ-5D-Y-3L studies, while self-care level 3 received the smallest weight in 8 out of 11 studies. Similarities were found between European value sets, and between Asian value sets. Value sets for Australia and Brazil had similar scale lengths as the Asian value sets, but differed in other ways. DISCUSSION: Although substantial differences were observed between EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets (e.g. regarding the length of the value scale), striking similarities between them existed (e.g. pain/discomfort consistently received the largest weight). Comparing EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets to EQ-5D-5L values generally suggests less willingness to trade life years for life quality for children.