Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2016

Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D

Authors: Takeru Shiroiwa, Takashi Fukuda, Shunya Ikeda, Ataru Igarashi, Shinichi Noto, Shinya Saito, Kojiro Shimozuma

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 3/2016

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to measure the population norms for the Japanese versions of preference-based measures (EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D). We also considered the relations between QOL score in the general population and socio-demographic factors.

Methods

A total of 1143 adult respondents (aged ≥ 20 years) were randomly sampled from across Japan using data from the Basic Resident Register. The health status of each respondent was measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D, and responses regarding socio-demographic data as well as subjective diseases and symptoms were obtained. The responses were converted to a QOL score using Japanese value sets.

Results

The percentages of respondents with full health scores were 68 % (EQ-5D-3L), 55 % (EQ-5D-5L), and 4 % (SF-6D). The QOL score measured using the SF-6D was significantly lower than those measured using either EQ-5D score. The QOL score was significantly lower among respondents over the age of 60 years, those who had a lower income, and those who had a shorter period of education. Intraclass correlation coefficient showed a poor agreement between the EQ-5D and SF-6D scores. The differences in QOL scores between respondents with and those without any disease were 0.064 for the EQ-5D-3L, 0.061 for the EQ-5D-5L, and 0.073 for the SF-6D; these differences are regarded as between-group minimal important differences in the general population.

Conclusion

The Japanese population norms of three preference-based QOL measures were examined for the first time. Such information is useful for economic evaluations and research examining QOL score.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRefPubMed

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.CrossRefPubMed

Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 503–520.CrossRefPubMed

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed

Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 597–612. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353. doi:10.1002/hec.673.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ikeda, S., Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, I., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2015). Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health, 64(1), 47–55. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3. (in Japanese).

11.

Brazier, J. E., Fukuhara, S., Roberts, J., Kharroubi, S., Yamamoto, Y., Ikeda, S., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(12), 1323–1331. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.022.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Szende, A., Janssen, B., & Cabases, J. (Eds.). (2014). Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Netherlands: Dordrecht Springer.

13.

Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316(7133), 736–741.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

14.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31814848f1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Konig, H. H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six european countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care, 47(2), 255–261. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318184759e.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Konig, H. H., Heider, D., Lehnert, T., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., et al. (2010). Health status of the advanced elderly in six European countries: Results from a representative survey using EQ-5D and SF-12. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 143. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-143.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

18.

Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., et al. (2010). Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 853–864. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Perneger, T. V., Combescure, C., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2010). General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health, 13(5), 631–635. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00727.x.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Saarni, S. I., Harkanen, T., Sintonen, H., Suvisaari, J., Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., et al. (2006). The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 15(8), 1403–1414. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-0020-1.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sorensen, J., Davidsen, M., Gudex, C., Pedersen, K. M., & Bronnum-Hansen, H. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474. doi:10.1177/1403494809105286.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., & Oppe, M. (2014). EQ-5D Portuguese population norms. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 425–430. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0488-4.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Golicki, D., & Niewada, M. (2015). General population reference values for 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in Poland. Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej, 125(1–2), 18–26.PubMed

24.

Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C., Whitty, J. A., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2375–2381. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the national health services survey 2008. Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 309–320. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

27.

Yu, S. T., Chang, H. Y., Yao, K. P., Lin, Y. H., & Hurng, B. S. (2015). Validity of EQ-5D in general population of Taiwan: Results of the 2009 national health interview and drug abuse survey of Taiwan. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0978-7.

28.

Abdin, E., Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J. A., Luo, N., & Chong, S. A. (2013). Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: Population norms for the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 2983–2991. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0405-x.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Abdin, E., Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J. A., Luo, N., & Chong, S. A. (2014). Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0859-5.

30.

Kularatna, S., Whitty, J. A., Johnson, N. W., Jayasinghe, R., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). EQ-5D-3L derived population norms for health related quality of life in Sri Lanka. PLoS One, 9(11), e108434. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108434.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

31.

Menezes, R. M., Andrade, M. V., Noronha, K. V., & Kind, P. (2015). EQ-5D-3L as a health measure of Brazilian adult population. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0994-7.

32.

van den Berg, B. (2012). Sf-6d population norms. Health Economics, 21(12), 1508–1512. doi:10.1002/hec.1823.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12005.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2015). SF-6D Portuguese population norms. The European Journal of Health Economics, 16(3), 235–241. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0568-6.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ciconelli, R. M., Ferraz, M. B., Kowalski, S., Pinheiro, G. R. C., & Sato, E. I. (2015). Brazilian urban population norms derived from the health-related quality of life SF-6D. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0991-x.PubMed

36.

Fukuda, T., Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Igarashi, I., Akazawa, M., Ishida, H., et al. (2013). Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health, 62(6), 625–640. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3. (in Japanese).

37.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

38.

Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Fukuhara, S., Bito, S., Green, J., Hsiao, A., & Kurokawa, K. (1998). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1037–1044.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Fukuhara, S., Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., Wada, S., & Gandek, B. (1998). Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1045–1053.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(1), 46–50.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

43.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.CrossRef

44.

Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., et al. (2004). A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 898–910. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

46.

Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 87–97. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884. doi:10.1002/hec.866.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2008). How consistent are health utility values? Quality of Life Research, 17(7), 1031–1042. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9368-8.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health, 14(4), 531–538. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

50.

De Smedt, D., Clays, E., Annemans, L., & De Bacquer, D. (2014). EQ-5D versus SF-12 in coronary patients: Are they interchangeable? Value Health, 17(1), 84–89. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

51.

van Stel, H. F., & Buskens, E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 20. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-20.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

52.

Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K. S., & Luo, N. (2014). Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The European Journal of Health Economics,. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7.PubMedCentral

53.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

55.

Le, Q. A., Doctor, J. N., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2013). Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Results from a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 59. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-59.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Title: Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D
Authors: Takeru Shiroiwa
Takashi Fukuda
Shunya Ikeda
Ataru Igarashi
Shinichi Noto
Shinya Saito
Kojiro Shimozuma
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Concurrent validity of the PROMIS® pediatric global health measure

Symptom clusters in women with breast cancer: an analysis of data from social media and a research study

Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

Stability of the 13-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale: a longitudinal prospective study in women treated for breast cancer

Implementation of the Kids-CAT in clinical settings: a newly developed computer-adaptive test to facilitate the assessment of patient-reported outcomes of children and adolescents in clinical practice in Germany

Evaluating a new methodology for providing individualized feedback in healthcare on quality of life and its importance, using the WHOQOL-BREF in a community population