OBJECTIVES: Several studies have shown that patients with heart diseases value hypothetical health states differently from the general public. We aimed to develop an EQ-5D-5L value set using heart disease patients’ preferences and compare it with a value set developed using the general public’s preferences.

METHODS: The study planned to recruit patients with heart diseases from two major cardiovascular tertiary centres in Singapore. Each patient is interviewed face-to-face to elicit preferences for 10 EQ-5D-5L health-states using the composite time trade-off (C-TTO) method. A 9-parameter (5 dimensions, 3 severity levels, and 1 pseudo-interactive term N4/5) multiplicative random-effects model was used to model the C-TTO data. Health-state utilities and disutilities for EQ-5D-5L dimensions of the patient value set and the local general public value set were compared.

RESULTS: The study included 552 patients and 1000 members of the general public. The patient sample was older, comprised of more males, and less educated compared to the general sample.

Based on the patient and general samples, mean absolute errors in predicted health-state utilities using the multiplicative model were 0.067 and 0.050, respectively.

In the model adjusted for demographic characteristics, patient values were lower compared to the general public values, with significantly lower values for moderate severity health-states. Patients valued mobility, self-care and usual activities dimensions as more important than the general public, anxiety/depression dimension as less important, and pain/discomfort dimension as similarly important.

Differences in health-state utilities between full health and mild, moderate, severe; mild and severe; mild and moderate were all larger using the patient value set compared to the general public value set.

CONCLUSIONS: There are systematic differences in EQ-5D-5L values derived from patients with heart disease and the general public. A value set reflecting patients’ health preferences would be useful for clinical decision-making and evaluating healthcare interventions from patients’ perspective.