The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States
Abstract
Few studies have compared preference values for health states obtained in different countries. The present study compared Spanish and United Kingdom (UK) time trade-off values for EuroQol-5D health states. The same preference elicitation protocol was followed in both countries. Differences in values for 43 health states rated directly were analyzed using t tests, and regression coefficients generated by random effects modeling were compared by aggregating the 2 value sets and using dummy variables to analyze country effect by dimension and level of severity. For the milder health states, Spanish and UK value assignation was similar; for intermediate health states, Spanish values were both higher and lower than UK values, whereas for health states worse than death, UK values were generally higher than Spanish values. There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) in values for 34.9% of health states rated directly, and some preference reversals between countries. UK raters ascribed greater importance to dimensions of pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, whereas Spanish raters placed more importance on functional dimensions of mobility and self-care. Further analysis is required to determine how these differences affect cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n · Cited by 6,060
Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey
Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736 · Cited by 1,059
Self-citation
Cited by
A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.866 · Cited by 797
Drummond, M., Barbieri, M., Cook, J., Glick, H. A., Lis, J., Malik, F., Reed, S. D., Rutten, F., Sculpher, M., & Severens, J. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x · Cited by 533
Kim, M.-H., Cho, Y.-S., Uhm, W.-S., Kim, S., & Bae, S.-C. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-5681-z · Cited by 309
Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states
Scalone, L., Cortesi, P. A., Ciampichini, R., Belisari, A., D’Angiolella, L. S., Cesana, G., & Mantovani, L. G. (2013) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.008 · Cited by 145
Benito‐León, J., Cubo, E., Coronell, C., & on behalf of the ANIMO Study Group (2012) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.23872 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-16
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2148756205
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x0102100102
- The paper
- Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P. (2001). A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x0102100102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.