Dataset Information

Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, China.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The SF-6D and EQ-5D are widely used generic index measures as health-related quality of life. We assessed within-subject agreement between SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities with different preference weights, and their validities in measuring Chinese rural residents, before and after standardization scores.

Methodology/principal findings

Rural residents over 18 years old were interviewed using EQ-5D and SF-6D in Jiangsu Province, China. EQ-5D utility-scoring algorithms were used from three conversion tables from the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States. Validities, Sensitivity and agreement between instruments were computed and compared. Factors affecting utility difference were explored with multiple liner regression models. Scores with standardization intervals of 0-1 in the two instruments were analyzed by the use of the above methods again. In 929 respondents, relative efficiency statistic and receiver operating characteristic curves analysis showed SF-6D to be the more efficient, followed by the EQ-5D model in Japan weights. Bland-Altman plot analysis showed paired SF-6D/EQ-5D in UK weights had better agreement. Though some risk factors were found, multiple liner regression demonstrated most coefficients were weaker than 0.2, and all R(2) values were less than 0.06. Standardization did not significantly influence these results except scores' value.

Conclusions/significance

SF-6D and next EQ-5D in Japan weights could be used for Chinese rural residents. Further research with larger sample size of population is needed to establish and determine the feasibility of standardization score.

SUBMITTER: Jin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3407238 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, China.

Jin Hui H Wang Bei B Gao Qian Q Chao Jianqian J Wang Siyuan S Tian Lin L Liu Pei P

PloS one 20120727 7

<h4>Background</h4>The SF-6D and EQ-5D are widely used generic index measures as health-related quality of life. We assessed within-subject agreement between SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities with different preference weights, and their validities in measuring Chinese rural residents, before and after standardization scores.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>Rural residents over 18 years old were interviewed using EQ-5D and SF-6D in Jiangsu Province, China. EQ-5D utility-scoring algorithms were used ...[more]

PMID: 22848526

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare utility weights of EuroQoL-five-dimension-3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) and Short-Form six-dimension (SF-6D) in a representative cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is designed to report the change to costs required to achieve an estimated change to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The quality component of a QALY is measured by utility. Utility represents the preference of general population for a given health state. Classification systems of the multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are used to define these health states. Utility weights developed from different classification systems can vary and may affect the conclusions from CUAs. DESIGN:A community-based cross-sectional study. SETTING:Anuradhapura, a rural district in Sri Lanka. PARTICIPANTS:A representative sample of 1096 patients with CKD, selected using the population-based CKD register, completed the EQ-5D-3L and SF-36. SF-6D was constructed from the SF-36 according to the published algorithm. The study assessed discrimination, correlation and differences across the two instruments. RESULTS:Study participants were predominantly male (62.6%). Mean EQ-5D-3L utility score was 0.540 (SD 0.35) compared with 0.534 (SD 0.09) for the SF-6D (p=0.588). The correlation (r) between the scores was 0.40 (p<0.001). Utility scores were significantly different in both males and females between the two tools, but there was no difference in age and educational categories. Both MAUI scores were significantly lower (p<0.001) among those who were in more advanced stages of the disease and the corresponding utility scores of the two instruments in different CKD stages were also significantly different (p<0.05). The largest effect size was seen among the patients on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS:The correlation between the scores was moderate. SF-6D had the lowest floor and ceiling effect and was better at detecting different stages of the disease. Thus, based on the evidence presented in this study, SF-6D appears to be more appropriate to be used among patients with CKD.

Project description:Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments - EQ-5D and SF-6D - for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain.Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland-Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness.The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland-Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D.This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the psychometric performance of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised-8 Dimensions (CFQ-R-8D), a new, condition-specific, preference-based measure, with that of generic preference-based measures EQ-5D-3L and Short Form 6 dimensions (SF-6D).MethodsData from three trials of participants with CF aged ≥ 14 years who completed the CFQ-R and EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D were used. Analyses were undertaken to evaluate convergent validity based on correlations with CFQ-R domain scores. Known-group validity was assessed based on percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second and pulmonary exacerbations. Responsiveness was based on correlation of change and sensitivity to change based on change in symptom severity. Effect sizes and standardized response means were estimated.ResultsCFQ-R-8D utilities and dimensions were strongly correlated with most of the overlapping CFQ-R domain scores (ρ > 0.5); EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D utilities and dimensions had moderate (ρ > 0.3) to strong correlations in dimensions capturing similar concepts. All measures showed evidence of known-group validity (P < 0.05). Change correlations were strong for CFQ-R-8D utilities and dimensions and CFQ-R, but they were moderate for SF-6D and mostly weak ((ρ > 0.1) for EQ-5D-3L. The SF-6D had the largest mean change over time and effect sizes, followed by CFQ-R-8D and then EQ-5D-3L. Neither CFQ-R-8D or SF-6D utility scores had ceiling effects (< 9% responses in full health) compared with those of EQ-5D-3L (61-62%). In participants classified as being in full health by EQ-5D-3L, CFQ-R-8D captured CF-specific health problems, particularly cough, abdominal pain, and breathing difficulty.ConclusionsThe CFQ-R-8D reflected known-group differences and changes over time with stronger evidence of good psychometric performance than EQ-5D-3L and similar evidence as SF-6D. Additionally, the CFQ-R-8D captured more condition-specific symptoms than EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D, which are important determinants of health-related quality of life for people with CF.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aims to compare the performance of the recently developed Chinese (city) tariff of the EQ-5D-3L against the UK, US, Japanese and Korean tariffs in a general rural population in China. METHODS:From November 2015 to September 2016, 12,085 permanent residents aged 45-69 from 257 villages randomly selected from Hua County, Henan Province, China, were interviewed using EQ-5D-3L, and a one-on-one questionnaire investigation was used to collect data on factors associated with HRQOL. The health utility scores were calculated using the UK, US, Japanese, Korean and Chinese (city) tariffs. The agreement, known-groups validity and sensitivity of these five tariffs were evaluated. Transition scores for pairs of observed EQ-5D-3L health states were calculated and compared. RESULTS:The Korean tariff yielded the highest mean health utility score (0.963), followed by the Chinese (city) (0.948), US (0.943), UK (0.930) and Japanese (0.921) tariffs, but the differences in the scores of any two tariffs did not exceed the MCID. The Chinese (city) tariff showed higher ICC values (ICCs>?0.89, 95% CI:0.755-0.964) and narrower limits of agreement (0.099-0.167) than the Korean tariff [(ICCs>?0.71, 95% CI:0.451-0.955); (0.146-0.253)]. The Chinese (city) tariff had a higher relative efficiency and effect size statistics in 10 out of 11 variables as compared to the UK, US and Japanese tariffs. The Chinese (city) tariff (0.215) was associated with moderate mean absolute transition scores compared with the UK (0.342), US (0.230), Japanese (0.149) and Korean (0.189) tariffs for 1485 observed pairs of the EQ-5D-3L health states. CONCLUSIONS:Health utility scores derived from the five tariffs differed. The Chinese (city) tariff was the most suitable of these tariffs and was without obvious weakness. We recommend adopting the Chinese (city) tariff when applying EQ-5D-3L to assess quality of life among the elderly in China's agricultural region with socio-economic status similar to Hua County. Results of this study had provided a crucial basis for health surveys, health promotion projects, health intervention trials, and health economic evaluation taking HRQOL as a target in rural areas of China.

Project description:PurposeTo measure health-related quality of life in the Chinese population using three universal health utility scales (CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D) and to compare the differences in the results obtained by the different scales to provide a reference for future utility on health-related quality of life in the Chinese population.MethodsAccording to the Chinese population's distribution area, gender, and age, quota sampling was conducted. Three scales, CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D, whose results were self-reported, were collected in succession after collecting respondents' demographic information. The health utility value and floor/ceiling effect were explained. Bland-Altman was used to evaluate the consistency, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the discriminative validity of the scale.ResultsThe mean utility values of the CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D scales, respectively, were 0.891, 0.927, and 0.841. The floor effect did not appear in any of the three scales, but the ceiling effect did, and the EQ-5D-5L ceiling effect was the most severe. The limits of the agreement interval for CQ-11D versus EQ-5D-5L in the total sample population were (-0.245,0.172); for CQ-11D versus SF-6D, they were (- 0.256,0.354); and for EQ-5D-5L versus SF-6D, they were (-0.199,0.371). The consistency of the three scales is satisfactory overall. In the total population, the intraclass correlation coefficient between CQ-11D and EQ-5D-5L was 0.709, while EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were 0.0.565 and that between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was 0.472. According to the subject operation curve results, the area under the curve for the total sample population of CQ-11D was 0.746, EQ-5D-5L was 0.669, and SF-6D was 0.734.ConclusionThe CQ-11D is inferior to the EQ-5D-5L, but superior to the SF-6D. There is a strong correlation between the health utility values of the total population as measured by the three scales and those of the healthy population. The CQ-11D scale is the most sensitive to differences between populations and diseases.

Dataset Information

Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, China.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets