IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i4d10.1007_s10198-024-01728-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Ákos Szabó

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Semmelweis University)

  • Valentin Brodszky

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Fanni Rencz

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Semmelweis University)

Abstract

Objectives We aim to compare the measurement properties of three indirect (EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D) and one direct (time trade-off, TTO) utility assessment methods in patients with chronic skin diseases. Methods 120 patients with physician-diagnosed chronic skin diseases (psoriasis 39%, atopic dermatitis 27%, acne 19%) completed a cross-sectional survey. Respondents completed the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and SF-36v1 questionnaires and a 10-year TTO task for own current health. Utilities were computed using the US value sets. Ceiling, convergent and known-group validity were compared across the utilities derived with these four methods. Known-groups were defined based on general, physical and mental health. The agreement between utilities was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Mean utilities for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO were 0.79, 0.47, 0.76 and 0.89. In corresponding order, the ceiling was 28%, 0%, 2% and 65%. The SF-6D showed excellent agreement with the EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.770). PROPr demonstrated poor agreement with the EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.381) and fair with SF-6D utilities (ICC = 0.445). TTO utilities showed poor agreement with indirectly assessed utilities (ICC = 0.058–0.242). The EQ-5D-5L better discriminated between known groups of general and physical health, while the SF-6D and PROPr outperformed the EQ-5D-5L for mental health problems. Conclusion There is a great variability in utilities across the four methods in patients with chronic skin conditions. The EQ-5D-5L, despite its higher ceiling, appears to be the most efficient in discriminating between patient groups for physical health aspects. Our findings inform the choice of instrument for quality-adjusted life year calculations in cost-utility analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Ákos Szabó & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz, 2025. "Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 627-639, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01728-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01728-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01728-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-024-01728-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    2. Christian Kromer & Daniel Celis & Diana Sonntag & Wiebke K Peitsch, 2018. "Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Anna Nikl & Mathieu F. Janssen & Balázs Jenei & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz, 2024. "Population Norms for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 583-603, May.
    5. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    6. Fanni Rencz & Gábor Ruzsa & Alex Bató & Zhihao Yang & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Valentin Brodszky, 2022. "Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 205-215, December.
    7. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    8. Barry Dewitt & David Feeny & Baruch Fischhoff & David Cella & Ron D. Hays & Rachel Hess & Paul A. Pilkonis & Dennis A. Revicki & Mark S. Roberts & Joel Tsevat & Lan Yu & Janel Hanmer, 2018. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Summary Score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) Scoring System," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 683-698, August.
    9. Jeff Richardson & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2015. "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," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 276-291, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Richard Huan Xu & Dong Dong & Nan Luo & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Yushan Wu & Siyue Yu & Renchi Yang & Junshuai Liu & Huiqin Yuan & Shuyang Zhang, 2021. "Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 547-557, June.
    3. M. Mercédesz Angyal & Mathieu F. Janssen & Péter L. Lakatos & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz, 2025. "The added value of the cognition, dining, gastrointestinal problems, sleep and tiredness bolt-on dimensions to the EQ-5D-5L in patients with coeliac disease," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(3), pages 473-485, April.
    4. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    5. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 33-41, December.
    6. Zhihao Yang & Jie Jiang & Pei Wang & Xuejing Jin & Jing Wu & Yu Fang & Da Feng & Xiaoyu Xi & Shunping Li & Mingxia Jing & Bin Zheng & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2022. "Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for China," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-155, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    9. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    10. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    11. Marco DiBonaventura & Lance Richard & Maya Kumar & Anna Forsythe & Natalia M Flores & Margaret Moline, 2015. "The Association between Insomnia and Insomnia Treatment Side Effects on Health Status, Work Productivity, and Healthcare Resource Use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Efthymiadou, Olina & Mossman, Jean & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 159-165.
    13. C. Rubio-Terrés & J. Soria & P. Morange & J. Souto & P. Suchon & J. Mateo & N. Saut & D. Rubio-Rodríguez & J. Sala & A. Gracia & S. Pich & E. Salas, 2015. "Economic Analysis of Thrombo inCode, a Clinical–Genetic Function for Assessing the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 233-242, April.
    14. Ron D. Hays & Anthony Rodriguez & Nabeel Qureshi & Chengbo Zeng & Maria Orlando Edelen, 2024. "Support for a Single Underlying Dimension of Self-Reported Health in a Sample of Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 19(5), pages 2213-2226, October.
    15. Nathan S. McClure & Mike Paulden & Arto Ohinmaa & Jeffrey A. Johnson, 2021. "Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1441-1451, December.
    16. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    17. Qingqing Chai & Zhihao Yang & Xiaoyan Liu & Di An & Jiangyang Du & Xiumei Ma & Kim Rand & Bin Wu & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients’ perspective: a feasibility study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 915-924, August.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Nalin Payakachat & Mir Ali & J. Tilford, 2015. "Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1137-1154, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D-5L; SF-6D; PROPr; TTO; Utility; Health-related quality of life; Validity; Psychometrics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01728-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.