[1] Merlo, G, Page, K, Ratcliffe, J, et al. Bridging the gap: exploring the barriers to using economic evidence in healthcare decision making and strategies for improving uptake. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2015;13:303–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[2] Sullivan, SM, Wells, G, Coyle, D. What guidance are economists given on how to present economic evaluations for policymakers? A systematic review. Value Health 2015;18:915–24.
Google Scholar | Crossref[3] Janssen, MF, Szende, A, Cabases, J, et al. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ 2019;20:205–16.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[4] Brazier, J, Ratcliffe, J, Salomon, JA, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Google Scholar[5] Kennedy-Martin, M, Slaap, B, Herdman, M, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ 2020;21:1245–57.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[6] EuroQol Group . EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI[7] Herdman, M, Gudex, C, Lloyd, A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[8] Pattanaphesaj, J, Thavorncharoensap, M, Ramos-Goni, JM, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2018;18:551–8.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[9] Lin, H-W, Li, C-I, Lin, F-J, et al. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L in Taiwan. PLoS One 2018;13:e0209344.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[10] Ferreira, PL, Antunes, P, Ferreira, LN, et al. A hybrid modeling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res 2019;28:3163–75.
Google Scholar | Crossref[11] Hobbins, A, Barry, L, Kelleher, D, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 2018;36:1345–53.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[12] Wittrup-Jensen, K, Lauridsen, J, Gudex, C, et al. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health 2009;37:459–66.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals[13] Jensen, CE, Sørensen, SS, Gudex, C, et al. The Danish EQ-5D-5L value set: a hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2021;19:579–91.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[14] McCaffrey, N, Kaambwa, B, Currow, DC, et al. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016;14:113.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[15] Poder, TG, Carrier, N, Kouakou, CRC. Quebec health-related quality-of-life population norms using the EQ-5D-5L: decomposition by sociodemographic data and health problems. Value Health 2020;23:251–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref[16] Golicki, D, Niewada, M. EQ-5D-5L Polish population norms. Arch Med Sci 2017;13:191–200.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[17] Hinz, A, Kohlmann, T, Stöbel-Richter, Y, et al. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res 2014;23:443–7.
Google Scholar | Crossref[18] Shiroiwa, T, Fukuda, T, Ikeda, S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L,EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2016;25:707–19.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[19] Kim, TH, Jo, M-W, Lee, S, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res 2013;22:2245–53.
Google Scholar | Crossref[20] Sørensen, J, Davidsen, M, Gudex, C, et al. Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scand J Public Health 2009;37:467–74.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals[21] Feng, Y, Devlin, N, Herdman, M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: who do the three- and five-level version of EQ-5D compare. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:1–16.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[22] Craig, BM, Pickard, AS, Lubetkin, EI. Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:93–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref[23] Janssen, MF, Pickard, AS, Golicki, D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22:1717–27.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[24] Stolk, E, Ludwig, K, Rand, K, et al. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 2019;22:23–30.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[25] Johnson, JA, Pickard, AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000;38:115–21.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[26] Saarni, SI, Härkänen, T, Sintonen, H, et al. The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: a general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2006;15:1403–14.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[27] Cohen, J . Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
Google Scholar[28] Clemens, S, Begum, N, Harper, C, et al. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from australia, the UK and USA. Qual Life Res 2014;23:2375–81.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[29] Curtin, F, Schultz, P. Multiple correlations and bonferroni’s correction. Biol Psychiatry 1998;44:775–7.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline[30] Scalone, L, Cortesi, PA, Ciampichini, R, et al. Health related quality of life norm data of the general population in Italy: results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 2015;12:e11457.
Google Scholar