IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0112389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Chen
  • Carlos K H Wong
  • Sarah M McGhee
  • Polly K P Pang
  • Wai-Cho Yu

Abstract

Background: The appropriate use of generic preference-based measures determines the accuracy of disease assessment and further decision on healthcare policy using quality adjusted life years. The discriminative capacity of different instruments would differ across disease groups. Our study was to examine the difference in utility scores for COPD patients measured by EQ-5D and SF-6D and to assist the choice of a proper instrument in this disease group. Methods: Differences of mean utility scores of EQ-5D and SF-6D in groups defined by socio-demographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service utilisation and severity of illness were tested using Mann-Whitney test, t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and ANOVA, as appropriate. The discriminative properties of the two instruments were compared against indicators of quality of life using receiver operating characteristic curves. The statistical significance of the area under the curves (AUC) was tested by ANOVA and F-statistics used to compare the efficiency with which each instrument discriminated between disease severity groups. Results: Mean utility scores of EQ-5D and SF-6D were 0.644 and 0.629 respectively in the 154 subjects included in the analysis. EQ-5D scores were significantly higher than SF-6D in groups less severe and these differences corresponded to a minimally important difference of greater than 0.03 (p 0.5 and p

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Chen & Carlos K H Wong & Sarah M McGhee & Polly K P Pang & Wai-Cho Yu, 2014. "A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112389
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112389
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112389&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0112389?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    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. Nord, Erik, 1991. "EuroQol(c): health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 25-36, June.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinyu Qian & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Ling-Hsiang Chuang & Nan Luo, 2020. "Measurement Properties of Commonly Used Generic Preference-Based Measures in East and South-East Asia: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 159-170, February.
    2. Myung-Jae Hwang & Jong-Hun Kim & Hae-Kwan Cheong, 2020. "Short-Term Impacts of Ambient Air Pollution on Health-Related Quality of Life: A Korea Health Panel Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Yeon Wook Kim & Chang-Hoon Lee & Young Sik Park & Yu-Il Kim & Chul Min Ahn & Ju-Ock Kim & Joo Hun Park & Sang Haak Lee & Jae Yeol Kim & Eun Mi Chun & Tae Hoon Jung & Kwang Ha Yoo, 2015. "Effect of Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke on the Quality of Life: A Nationwide Population-Based Study from South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    3. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    4. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    7. Annie Hawton & Colin Green & Elizabeth Goodwin & Timothy Harrower, 2019. "Health state utility values (QALY weights) for Huntington’s disease: an analysis of data from the European Huntington’s Disease Network (EHDN)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(9), pages 1335-1347, December.
    8. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    10. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    11. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Christopher McCabe & Richard Edlin & David Meads & Chantelle Brown & Samer Kharroubi, 2013. "Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 635-641, August.
    13. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    14. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    17. G. Kobelt & B. Jönsson, 2008. "The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: outcome and cost-utility of treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 95-106, January.
    18. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    19. Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    20. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.

    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:plo:pone00:0112389. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.