IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i9p873-884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups

Author

Listed:
  • John Brazier
  • Jennifer Roberts
  • Aki Tsuchiya
  • Jan Busschbach

Abstract

As the number of preference‐based instruments grows, it becomes increasingly important to compare different preference‐based measures of health in order to inform an important debate on the choice of instrument. This paper presents a comparison of two of them, the EQ‐5D and the SF‐6D (recently developed from the SF‐36) across seven patient/population groups (chronic obstructive airways disease, osteoarthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, lower back pain, leg ulcers, post menopausal women and elderly). The mean SF‐6D index value was found to exceed the EQ‐5D by 0.045 and the intraclass correlation coefficient between them was 0.51. Whilst this convergence lends some support for the validity of these measures, the modest difference at the aggregate level masks more significant differences in agreement across the patient groups and over severity of illness, with the SF‐6D having a smaller range and lower variance in values. There is evidence for floor effects in the SF‐6D and ceiling effects in the EQ‐5D. These discrepancies arise from differences in their health state classifications and the methods used to value them. Further research is required to fully understand the respective roles of the descriptive systems and the valuation methods and to examine the implications for estimates of the impact of health care interventions. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:9:p:873-884
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.866?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Lyne Lalonde & Ann E. Clarke & Lawrence Joseph & Steven A. Grover, 1999. "Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 149-156, April.
    4. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    5. Bleichrodt, Han, 2001. "Probability Weighting in Choice under Risk: An Empirical Test," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 185-198, September.
    6. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    7. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    2. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    3. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    4. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    7. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    8. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    9. Méndez, Ildefonso & Abellán Perpiñán, Jose M. & Sánchez Martínez, Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2011. "Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: An illustration using the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1280-1292.
    10. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    11. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    12. Mathieu F. Janssen & Ines Buchholz & Dominik Golicki & Gouke J. Bonsel, 2022. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1081-1093, November.
    13. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    14. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    15. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    16. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    17. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    18. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kuhan Perampaladas & Kathryn Gaebel & Brett Doble & Feng Xie, 2015. "Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 847-855, November.
    19. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419, December.
    20. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:9:p:873-884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.