基于中国普通人群的EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L比较研究

目的:对EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L量表在中国普通人群中的差异进行比较分析。方法:样本来自北京、成都、南京、沈阳的城市和农村居民,对两种量表的天花板效应、再分布情况和信息区分能力进行分析,并探索这三个方面在城乡居民之间的差异。结果:天花板效应方面,EQ-5D-5L量表选择完全健康状态比例为60.50%,低于EQ-5D-3L的72.08%,并且,这种改善主要体现在"疼痛/不舒服"与"焦虑/抑郁"两个维度。城市和农村的天花板效应分别下降了12.94%和10.21%。再分布方面,两种量表总体不一致率为6.93%,不一致情况主要集中在"疼痛/不舒服"和"焦虑/抑郁"维度。不一致率在农村为8.96%,高于城市的4.93%。信息区分能力方面,EQ-5D-5L量表各个维度Shannon指数均大于3L,说明其信息区分能力更好,农村与城市样本中得到了一致的发现。结论:EQ-5D-5L量表能够降低天花板效应并提高健康状态的辨别能力,开展生命质量研究时应根据两种量表的优势和特点,进行合理选择。     

基于中国四类人群的EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L量表比较分析

  目的  分别在高血压、糖尿病、慢性肝炎患者和普通人群中,比较EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L量表的差异。  方法  用两量表对四类人群进行调查,比较两量表测量结果的一致性、再分布不一致性和信息区分能力。  结果  四类人群中,两量表效用值的组内相关系数均>0.7;EQ-5D-5L与EQ-5D-3L量表相比,天花板效应降幅分别为5.8%、8.3%、9.2%和17.3%;两量表五个维度的平均再分布不一致率分别为5.5%、7.6%、5.7%和2.2%,不一致情况主要集中在疼痛/不舒服和焦虑/抑郁两个维度;在四类人群中,除普通人群的自我照顾维度外,其余维度EQ-5D-5L量表的Shannon指数均优于EQ-5D-3L量表;Shannon均匀指数方面,在行动能力维度上四类人群均是EQ-5D-5L量表的值较大,两量表在其他四个维度对应的数值各有高低。  结论  在慢病人群中,EQ-5D-5L量表额外增加水平体现出其应有的优势,并能提高受访者对量表中健康状态的辨别能力,而在普通人群中EQ-5D-3L量表已能够满足研究需要。     

构建EQ-5D-5L量表效用积分体系的国际研究现状分析

为降低天花板效应,增强对较轻健康状态的区分能力,欧洲生命质量小组在EQ-5D-3L量表的基础上开发出新的EQ-5D-5L量表。EQ-5D量表的测量结果需通过效用积分体系转化成健康效用值,目前,加拿大、西班牙、英国、乌拉圭、韩国及荷兰已构建起基于本国人群健康偏好的EQ-5D-5L效用积分体系。通过对上述国家构建的研究方案、测量方法、健康状态选取、样本估计、数据处理及模型结果等进行介绍和比较,以此为中国EQ-5D-5L积分体系的构建提供参考。     

How different are composite and traditional TTO valuations of severe EQ-5D-5L states?

Quality of Life Research - Different variants of time trade-off (TTO) have been employed to elicit health state preferences and to create value sets for preference-based instruments. We compared...     

基于EQ-5D-3L和ICECAP-A量表的我国普通人群生命质量研究

目的:分析EQ-5D-3L和ICECAP-A量表评价我国普通人群生命质量的差异以及对干预方案价值评价的影响,为研究者选择合适的生命质量测量工具提供参考。方法:采用配额抽样选取802名受访者进行生命质量评价,并分别采用因子分析、多分格相关性和Bland-Altman plot一致性分析等方法探讨两量表测量结果的差异。结果:Wilcoxon秩和检验表明EQ-5D-3L量表的健康效用均值高于ICECAP-A量表的测量结果;ICECAP-A量表五个维度均主要加载于反映社会心理健康的因子1,而EQ-5D-3L量表的大部分维度主要加载于反映生理健康的因子2。部分维度之间也存在显著的相关性,但均较弱。两量表效用值的ICC为0.32,一致性分析显示5.74%的受访者超出了95%的一致性界限。结论:前者的测量内涵是健康相关生命质量,而后者则反映的是幸福感、可行能力等更广义的生命质量,其对于旨在提升公众广义幸福感和社会福祉的干预措施效果评估方面具有较好的适用性。研究者可根据测量目的及量表属性选择合适的量表,鉴于两个量表在测量内涵中的互补性,也可以在研究中同时采用两种量表以便更全面地反映干预措施的效果或受访者的生命质量。     

EQ-5D-3L两种积分效用体系对成都市城镇居民的适用性评价

目的通过比较英国与中国EQ-5D-3L两种积分效用体系对成都市城镇居民生命质量健康效用值的评价,探讨两种体系对研究对象的适用性。方法用EQ-5D量表测量患者的生命质量,数据用SPSS 19.0进行统计分析。结果通过spearmen相关矩阵分析得出两种积分体系具有高度的相关性,所得健康指数的分布均为偏态分布,但是相较于英国的积分体系,中国积分体系模型拟合优度的R2、F值比英国高,且AIC值与BIC值低于英国。结论相比于英国的效用积分体系,我国的积分体系对研究人群健康效用评价有更好的适用性。     

基于EQ-5D-5L量表的甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量及其影响因素分析*

目的：评价甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量现状并分析其影响因素，为改善甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者的生命质量提供参考建议。方法：使用欧洲五维健康 （EQ-5D-5L） 量表并采用线上调查的形式对符合纳入排除标准的甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者进行调查，采用单因素方差分析和多水平线性回归分析影响因素。结果：甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者健康效用值均值为 （0.708± 0.298），健康状况自评问卷与视觉模拟标尺评分 （EQ Visual analogue scale，EQ-VAS） 均值为 （65.45±27.82） 分，性别、年龄、户籍类型、婚姻状态、家庭平均年收入、颈部暴露史、甲状腺癌家族史、结节/肿瘤性质对甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者健康效用值和EQ-VAS量表的影响，差异具有统计学意义 （P＜0.05）。结论：甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量偏低，应综合考虑影响生命质量的各种因素，提升患者生理机能和心理弹性，改善甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者的生命质量。     

Mapping PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales to EQ-5D-3L utility scores in transfusion-dependent thalassemia patients

The European Journal of Health Economics - To develop a mapping algorithm for generating EQ-5D-3L utility scores from the PedsQL Generic Core Scales (PedsQL GCS) in patients with...     

基于EQ-5D-5L量表的山东省农村地区胃癌患者健康效用值测量及影响因素分析

目的:测量山东省农村地区胃癌患者的健康效用值,并分析其影响因素。方法:采用EQ-5D-5L测量山东省农村地区胃癌患者的生命质量,计算其效用值,并采用Tobit回归分析其影响因素。结果:样本地区胃癌患者的健康效用值平均值为0.86±0.21,EQ-VAS评分的平均值为74.74±16.98分。婚姻状况、居住地、疾病阶段以及有无其他慢性病对于患者健康效用值的影响具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:山东省农村地区胃癌患者的健康效用值较低,婚姻状况、疾病阶段、有无其他慢性病是胃癌患者健康效用值的主要影响因素。     

Valuing health states: is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?

Background

Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are a key outcome measure widely used within health technology assessment and health service research studies. QALYs combine quantity and quality of life, with quality of life calculations relying on the value of distinct health states. Such health states’ values capture the preferences of a population and have been typically built through numerical elicitation methods. Evidence points to these value scores being influenced by methods in use and individuals reporting cognitive difficulties in eliciting their preferences. Evidence from other areas has further suggested that individuals may prefer using distinct elicitation techniques and that this preference can be influenced by their numeracy. In this study we explore the use of the MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) non-numerical preference elicitation approach for health states’ evaluation.

Methods

A new protocol for preference elicitation based on MACBETH (only requiring qualitative judgments) was developed and tested within a web survey format. A sample of the Portuguese general population (n=243) valued 25 EQ-5D-3L health states with the MACBETH protocol and with a variant of the time trade-off (TTO) protocol, for comparison purposes and for understanding respondents’ preference for distinct protocols and differences in inconsistent evaluations. Respondents answered to a short numeracy test, and basic socio-economic information collected.

Results

Results show that the mean values derived from MACBETH and the TTO variant are strongly correlated; however, there are substantial differences for several health states’ values. Large and similar numbers of logical inconsistencies were found in respondents’ answers with both methods. Participants with higher levels of numeracy according to the test preferred expressing value judgments with MACBETH, while participants with lower levels were mostly indifferent to both methods. Higher correlations between MACBETH and TTO variant evaluations were observed for individuals with higher numeracy.

Conclusion

Results suggest that it is worth researching the use of non-numerical preference elicitation methods. Numeracy tests more appropriate for preference elicitation when no explicit considerations of uncertainty are made need to be explored and used. Further behavioural research is needed to fully understand the potential for using these methods in distinct settings (e.g. in different evaluation contexts and in face-to-face and non-face-to-face environments), as well as to explore the effect of literacy on assessments and on respondents’ preferences.

     

Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample

Purpose

To contribute to the ongoing discussion on the choice of a preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument to be used in cost-effectiveness analysis by studying and comparing the validity, sensitivity and relative efficiency of 15-D and EuroQol 5D 5L (EQ-5D-5L) in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease (PD) population sample.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-three volunteers were asked to complete an interview using 15-D and EQ-5D-5L. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to test the convergent validity of these instruments with specific PD measures. Sensitivity and efficiency were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and relative efficiency statistic, respectively.

Results

A strong correlation (r > 0.65; p < 0.001) was found between both 15-D and EQ-5D-5L utilities with the summary score of the PDQ-8, and a strong correlation (r > 0.50; p < 0.001) was found between 15-D and EQ-5D-5L utilities with the EQ-VAS. The areas under the ROC of both instruments all exceeded 0.5 (p < 0.001). The 15-D instrument was 4.1–29.8 % less efficient at detecting differences between patients with optimal HRQoL, while this instrument was 11 % more efficient at detecting differences between patients at mild and moderate to strong severity of the PD symptoms.

Conclusions

15-D and EQ-5D-5L are showed to be valid and sensitivity generic HRQoL measures in Spanish PD patients with both instruments showing similar HRQoL dimension coverage and ceiling/floor effects. The 15-D has better efficiency and greater sensitivity to detect clinical changes in PD severity of the symptoms meanwhile the EQ-5D-5L is better to detect clinical HRQoL changes. Additionally, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requires less time than 15-D to be administered, and it might be more appropriate for studies conducted in Spain, since a country-specific “value set” is available for this instrument and not for the 15-D.     

EQ-5D-3L量表两种中国效用积分体系的比较：基于西藏城乡居民的应用

目的:比较EQ-5D-3L中国的两种效用积分体系在西藏自治区城乡居民应用的差异,为合理选择积分体系提供参考。方法:数据来源于西藏第五次国家卫生服务调查,用EQ-5D量表测量健康相关生命质量,运用Tobit模型分析影响健康效用值因素的差异。结果:在5个维度中,自我照顾存在的问题最少,疼痛或不舒服维度存在问题最多,2014版和2018版的积分体系下全人群的健康效用值分别为0.927 8和0.969 2,Tobit回归分析发现2018版的组间差异小于2014版。结论:2018版积分体系得到的健康效用值高于2014版,两种效用积分体系具有较好一致性,但一致性区间(0.32)明显大于最小显著性差异(MID)0.074,两种积分体系不可互相替代。     

Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies

Introduction

Many countries have established their own EQ-5D value sets proceeding on the basis that health preferences differ among countries/populations. So far, published studies focused on comparing value set using TTO data. This study aims to compare the health preferences among 11 Asian populations using the DCE data collected in their EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.

Methods

In the EQ-VT protocol, 196 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were valued by a general population sample using DCE method for all studies. DCE data were obtained from the study PI. To understand how the health preferences are different/similar with each other, the following analyses were done: (1) the statistical difference between the coefficients; (2) the relative importance of the five EQ-5D dimensions; (3) the relative importance of the response levels.

Results

The number of statistically differed coefficients between two studies ranged from 2 to 16 (mean: 9.3), out of 20 main effects coefficients. For the relative importance, there is not a universal preference pattern that fits all studies, but with some common characteristics, e.g. mobility is considered the most important; the relative importance of levels are approximately 20% for level 2, 30% for level 3, 70% for level 4 for all studies.

Discussion

Following a standardized study protocol, there are still considerable differences in the modeling and relative importance results in the EQ-5D-5L DCE data among 11 Asian studies. These findings advocate the use of local value set for calculating health state utility.

     

Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L

Purpose

It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L.

Methods

A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs.

Results

Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar.

Conclusions

When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably.