Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36814039›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2024

COVID-19 and EQ-5D-5L health state valuation.

Edward J D Webb, Paul Kind, David Meads, Adam Martin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Psychometric validation of a cognition and social participation bolt-on for the EQ-5D-5L in SARS-CoV-2 infected German healthcare workers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study for Trinidad and Tobago.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward J D WebbAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. e.j.d.webb@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7918-839X
Paul KindInstitute of Epidemiology and Health, University College London, UK and Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
David MeadsAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Adam MartinAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 289-RA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigate whether and how general population health state values were influenced by the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes could have important implications, as general population values are used in health resource allocation. DATA: In Spring 2020, participants in a UK general population survey rated 2 EQ-5D-5L states, 11111 and 55555, as well as dead, using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 100 = best imaginable health to 0 = worst imaginable health. Participants answered questions about their pandemic experiences, including COVID-19's effect on their health and quality of life, and their subjective risk/worry about infection. ANALYSIS: VAS ratings for 55555 were transformed to the full health = 1, dead = 0 scale. Tobit models were used to analyse VAS responses, as well as multinomial propensity score matching (MNPS) to create samples balanced according to participant characteristics.

resultsOf 3021 respondents, 2599 were used for analysis. There were statistically significant, but complex associations between experiences of COVID-19 and VAS ratings. For example, in the MNPS analysis, greater subjective risk of infection implied higher VAS ratings for dead, yet worry about infection implied lower ratings. In the Tobit analysis, people whose health was affected by COVID-19 rated 55555 higher, whether the effect on health was positive or negative.

conclusionThe results complement previous findings that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted EQ-5D-5L health state valuation, and different aspects of the pandemic had different effects.

Indexed as

COVID-19Quality of LifeHealth StatusHealth Status IndicatorsHumansPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19EQ-5D-5LHealth shockValuationVisual analogue scale

Identifiers

PMID36814039
PMCPMC9946870
OpenAlexW4321486739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.