nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

28.02.2018

Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China

verfasst von: Liu Liu, Shunping Li, Yue Zhao, Jianglin Zhang, Gang Chen

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 5/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the validity of direct and indirect health state utility (HSU) and subjective well-being measures in psoriasis vulgaris patients.

Methods

A convenience sampling framework was used to successively recruit patients with psoriasis vulgaris from the outpatient clinics of a tertiary hospital in Changsha, Central South China. Participants completed time trade-off (TTO), standard gamble (SG), the five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), the WHO-5 well-being index, and the psoriasis disability index (PDI). The concurrent and known-groups validity of HSUs and well-being index in psoriasis patients were firstly studied. The agreements among HSUs and the relationship between HSU and well-being measures were further explored.

Results

A valid sample of 343 patients was analyzed. Mean HSU and well-being scores elicited from the EQ-5D-5L/TTO/SG and WHO-5 were 0.90/0.85/0.88 and 13.69, respectively. The Spearman correlation (concurrent validity) was the strongest between PDI and WHO-5 (r = 0.45), followed by with EQ-5D-5L (0.38), SG (r = 0.20), and the TTO (r = 0.18). The pairwise intraclass correlation coefficients among the three HSU measures were < 0.30. The known-groups validity was evident in all measures except for the SG. Exploratory factor analysis further suggests a complementary relationship between the EQ-5D-5L and WHO-5.

Conclusions

There is a poor agreement between direct and indirect methods on measuring HSU with psoriasis vulgaris. Results from this study recommend that the EQ-5D-5L is the most preferred method to elicit HSU from psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China. It is important to further analyze the subjective well-being in addition to the HSU to fully understand the impact of psoriasis.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Parisi, R., Symmons, D. P., Griffiths, C. E., & Ashcroft, D. M., (2013). Global epidemiology of psoriasis: A systematic review of incidence and prevalence. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 133(2), 377–385.CrossRefPubMed

Ding, X., Wang, T., Shen, Y., Wang, X., Zhou, C., Tian, S., et al. (2012). Prevalence of psoriasis in China: A population-based study in six cities. European Journal of Dermatology, 22(5), 663–667.PubMed

Shao, C. G., Zhang, G. W., & Wang, G. C. (1987). Distribution of psoriasis in China: A nationwide screening. Proceedings of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Peking Union Medical College, 2(2), 59–65.

Palfreeman, A. C., McNamee, K. E., & McCann, F. E. (2013). New developments in the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A focus on apremilast. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 7, 201–210.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Colombo, D., & Perego, R. (2013). Quality of life in psoriasis. In H. Lima (Ed.), Psoriasis: types, causes and medication (Chap. 07). Rijeka: InTech.

WHO (2016). Global Report on Psoriasis, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204417/1/9789241565189_eng.pdf. Accessed March 21 2017.

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.CrossRefPubMed

von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

10.

Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118–133.PubMedCentralPubMed

11.

Attema, A. E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S53–S64.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gray, A. M., Clarke, P. M., Wolstenholme, J. L., & Wordsworth, S. (2010). Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. New York: Oxford University Press.

13.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Richardson, J., Mckie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. Encyclopedia of Health Economics, 2, 341–357.CrossRef

15.

Arnold, D., Girling, A., Stevens, A., & Lilford, R. (2009). Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. BMJ, 339, b2688.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

16.

Cubi-Molla, P., de Vries, J., & Devlin, N. (2014). A study of the relationship between health and subjective well-being in Parkinson’s disease patients. Value in Health, 17(4), 372–379.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Kaambwa, B., Mccaffrey, N., & Richardson, J. (2017). Empirical comparison between capability and two health-related quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, (1), 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9.

18.

Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2013). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 885–890.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

20.

Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Topp, C. W., Ostergaard, S. D., Sondergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bech, P., Gudex, C., & Johansen, K. S. (1996). The WHO (Ten) well-being index: Validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, 65(4), 183–190.CrossRef

23.

Finlay, A. Y., & Kelly, S. E. (1987). Psoriasis: An index of disability. Clinical & Experimental Dermatology, 12(1), 8–11.CrossRef

24.

Finlay, A. Y., & Coles, E. C. (1995). The effect of severe psoriasis on the quality of life of 369 patients. British Journal of Dermatology, 132(2), 236–244.CrossRefPubMed

25.

He, Z., Lu, C., Ou, A., Fang, J., Wang, D., Deng, J., et al. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) in Chinese patients with psoriasis. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 37.CrossRef

26.

Fredriksson, T., & Pettersson, U. (1978). Severe psoriasis–oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica, 157(4), 238–244.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Schmitt, J., & Wozel, G. (2005). The psoriasis area and severity index is the adequate criterion to define severity in chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Dermatology, 210(3), 194–199.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2013). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes: Wiley.

29.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, D., Wang, D., Li, Y., et al. (2017). Assessing income-related health inequality and horizontal inequity in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 241–256.CrossRef

31.

Poor, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulacsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvegi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309(5), 357–370.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Silverdahl, M., Hermansson, C., & Lindberg, M. (1999). Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. British Journal of Dermatology, 141(6), 1067–1075.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Boye, K. S., Matza, L. S., Feeny, D. H., Johnston, J. A., Bowman, L., & Jordan, J. B. (2014). Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: When should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 14(3), 437–450.CrossRef

35.

Matza, L. S., Boye, K. S., Feeny, D. H., Bowman, L., Johnston, J. A., Stewart, K. D., et al. (2015). The time horizon matters: Results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation. European Journal of Health Economics Hepac Health Economics in Prevention & Care, 17(8), 1–12.

36.

Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2017). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Gamst-Klaussen, T., Chen, G., Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). Health state utility instruments compared: Inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1667–1678.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Wang, Y., Tan, N. C., Tay, E. G., Thumboo, J., & Luo, N. (2015). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Singapore. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 103.CrossRef

39.

Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C., Whitty, J. A., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2375–2381.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China
verfasst von: Liu Liu
Shunping Li
Yue Zhao
Jianglin Zhang
Gang Chen
Publikationsdatum: 28.02.2018
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1819-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2018

Conflict and well-being: a comparative study of health-related quality of life, stress, and insecurity of university students in the West Bank and Jordan

Association of midlife value priorities with health-related quality of life, frailty and mortality among older men: a 26-year follow-up of the Helsinki Businessmen Study (HBS)

Social capital dynamics and health in mid to later life: findings from Australia

Effect of health literacy on the quality of life of older patients with long-term conditions: a large cohort study in UK general practice

The impact of extended half-life versus conventional factor product on hemophilia caregiver burden

Quality of life in a broader perspective: Does ASCOT reflect the capability approach?