nach oben

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Erschienen in:

01.10.2017 | Original Research Article

A Head-to-Head Comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L Value Sets in Thai Patients with Chronic Diseases

verfasst von: Phantipa Sakthong, Wipaporn Munpan

Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Little was known about the head-to-head comparison of psychometric properties between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L or the different value sets of EQ-5D-5L. Therefore, this study set out to compare the psychometric properties including agreement, convergent, and known-group validity between the SF-6D and the EQ-5D-5L using the real value sets from Thailand and the UK in patients with chronic diseases.

Methods

356 adults taking a medication for at least 3 months were identified from a university hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, between July 2014 and March 2015. Agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots. Convergent validity was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS and SF-12v2. For known-groups validity, the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to examine the associations between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L and patient characteristics.

Results

Agreements between the SF-6D and the EQ-5D-5L using Thai and UK value sets were fair, with ICCs of 0.45 and 0.49, respectively. Bland-Altman plots showed that the majority of the SF-6D index scores were lower than the EQ-5D-5L index scores. Both the EQ-5D-5L value sets were more related to the EQ-VAS and physical health, while the SF-6D was more associated with mental health. Both EQ-5D-5L value sets were more sensitive than the SF-6D in discriminating patients with different levels of more known groups except for adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions

The SF-6D and both EQ-5D-5L value sets appeared to be valid but sensitive to different outcomes in Thai patients with chronic diseases.

Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of health economics. San Diego: Elsevier Science; 2014. p. 341–57.CrossRef

Brooks R, EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.CrossRefPubMed

Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect utility. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2008;91:S43–52.

Thavorncharoensup M. Utility measurement. In: Chaikledkaew U, Teerawatananont Y, editors. The guideline of health intervention and technology assessment in Thailand. 2nd ed. Bangkok: The Graphic System Company; 2013. p. 74–88.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, Kim SH, Chung SM. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2245–53.CrossRefPubMed

Scalone L, Coampichini R, Fagiouli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D-3L with the new version EQ-5D-5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1707–16.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Golicki D, Niewada M, Buczek J, Karlinska A, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1555–63.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;2:74. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.CrossRef

12.

Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14. doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Yfantopoulos JN, Chantzaras AE. Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. Eur J Health Econ. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.

14.

Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Khudairy AA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1775–84.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Frieburg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3383–90.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1767–74.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;3:2355–63.CrossRef

18.

Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, 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.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Chen G, Maxwell A. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of a 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:147–59.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Campbell JA, Palmer AJ, Venn A, Sharman M, Otahal P, Neil A. A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. Patient. 2016;9:311–22.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mihalopoulos C, Chen G, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Richardson J. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205:390–7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, Vathsala A, Chia KS, Luo N. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:1019–26.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Brazier JE, Roberts JR, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:3015–22.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pattanaphesaj, J. Health related quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5L): measurement property testing and its preference-based score in Thai population. Bangkok: Mahidol University; 2014 (dissertation).

26.

Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. London: Office of Health Economics; 2016.

27.

Sakthong P, Chinthammit C, Sukarnjanaset P, Sonsa-ardjit N, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure of Pharmaceutical Therapy for Quality of Life (PROMPT-QoL). Value Health RI. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2017.02.003 (in print).

28.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker D, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey. Lincoln: Quality Metric, Incorporated; 2002.

29.

Nunnally JC Jr. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.

30.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, Incorporated; 2000.

31.

Brazier JE, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–9.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Rosner B. Fundamental of Biostatistics. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Thomson Learning; 2000.

33.

Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefPubMed

34.

DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

35.

Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Cohen P. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale; 1988.

37.

Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14:1142–5.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.CrossRefPubMed

39.

van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;35:276–91.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Sakthong P, Sakulbumrungsil R, Chabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference value sets in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:71. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Karlsson JA, Nilsson JA, Neovius M, Kristensen LE, Gülfe A, Saxne T, et al. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-years estimation: comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:2163–6.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Galante J, Augustovski F, Colantonio L, Bardach A, Caporale J, Marti SG, et al. Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states’ utility value sets for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011;14:60–4.CrossRef

44.

Mozzi A, Meregaglia M, Lazzaro C, Tornatore V, Belfiglio M, Fattore G. A comparison of EuroQol 5-dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference value sets in a patient sample. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:267–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

WHOQOL Group. The development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kunyken W, editors. Quality of life assessment: international perspectives. Berlin: Springer; 1994. p. 41–60.CrossRef

Titel: A Head-to-Head Comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L Value Sets in Thai Patients with Chronic Diseases
verfasst von: Phantipa Sakthong
Wipaporn Munpan
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

Cost of Trauma Care in Secondary- and Tertiary-Care Public Sector Hospitals in North India

Role of Cost on Failure to Access Prescribed Pharmaceuticals: The Case of Statins

User Fees in General Practice: Willingness to Pay and Potential Substitution Patterns—Results from a Danish GP Patient Survey

The XprESS Multi-Sinus Dilation System for the Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Frail Older Persons: Development and Application to a Physiotherapy-Based Intervention

Economic Evaluations of Thrombophilia Screening Prior to Prescribing Combined Oral Contraceptives: A Systematic and Critical Review