Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 09-05-2024

Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire

Authors: T. Shiroiwa, M. T. King, R. Norman, F. Müller, R. Campbell, G. Kemmler, T. Murata, K. Shimozuma, T. Fukuda

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility measure derived from the cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten HRQL dimensions: physical, role, social and emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, and bowel problems.

Methods

Quota sampling of a Japanese online panel was used to achieve representativeness of the Japanese general population by sex and age (≥ 18 years). The valuation method was an online discrete choice experiment. Each participant considered 16 choice pairs, randomly assigned from 960 choice pairs. Each pair included two QLU-C10D health states and life expectancy. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of each dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient for life expectancy.

Results

A total of 2809 eligible panel members consented, 2662/2809 (95%) completed at least one choice pair, and 2435/2662 (91%) completed all choice pairs. Within dimensions, preference weights were generally monotonic. Physical functioning, role functioning, and pain were associated with the largest utility weights. Intermediate utility weights were associated with social functioning and nausea; the remaining symptoms and emotional functioning were associated with smaller utility decrements. The value of the worst health state was − 0.221, lower than that seen in most other existing QLU-C10D country-specific value sets.

Conclusions

The Japan-specific QLU-C10D value set is suitable for evaluating the cost and utility of oncology treatments for Japanese health technology assessment and decision-making.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013 NICE Process and Methods Guides. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013 NICE Process and Methods Guides. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
2.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T. (2020). Cost-effectiveness evaluation for pricing medicines and devices: A new value-based price adjustment system in Japan. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 36(3), 270–276.PubMedCrossRef Shiroiwa, T. (2020). Cost-effectiveness evaluation for pricing medicines and devices: A new value-based price adjustment system in Japan. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 36(3), 270–276.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference 1990 EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 16(3):199–208 1990 EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 16(3):199–208
5.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., et al. (2016). Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 707–719.PubMedCrossRef Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., et al. (2016). Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 707–719.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical care., 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical care., 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Noto, S., Shiroiwa, T., Kobayashi, M., Murata, T., Ikeda, S., & Fukuda, T. (2020). Development of a multiplicative, multi-attribute utility function and eight single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in Japan. Journal of patient-reported outcomes., 4(1), 23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Noto, S., Shiroiwa, T., Kobayashi, M., Murata, T., Ikeda, S., & Fukuda, T. (2020). Development of a multiplicative, multi-attribute utility function and eight single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in Japan. Journal of patient-reported outcomes., 4(1), 23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2020). Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical care., 58(6), 557–565.PubMedCrossRef Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2020). Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical care., 58(6), 557–565.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life research, 25(3), 625–636.PubMedCrossRef King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life research, 25(3), 625–636.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 637–649.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 637–649.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Parry, D., & Taylor, M. (2014). Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: A comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Quality of life Research, 23(3), 971–976.PubMedCrossRef Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Parry, D., & Taylor, M. (2014). Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: A comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Quality of life Research, 23(3), 971–976.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference McTaggart-Cowan, H., Teckle, P., & Peacock, S. (2013). Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: A review of the literature. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 13(6), 753–765.CrossRef McTaggart-Cowan, H., Teckle, P., & Peacock, S. (2013). Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: A review of the literature. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 13(6), 753–765.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., & Krabbe, P. F. (2015). A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33(8), 867–877.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., & Krabbe, P. F. (2015). A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33(8), 867–877.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Finch, A. P., Gamper, E., & Norman, R. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39(9), 1085–1098.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Finch, A. P., Gamper, E., & Norman, R. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39(9), 1085–1098.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Gamper, E. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of life Research, 30(7), 2009–2019.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Gamper, E. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of life Research, 30(7), 2009–2019.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., & Nerich, V. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life Research, 28(12), 3197–3211.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., & Nerich, V. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life Research, 28(12), 3197–3211.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
go back to reference King, M. T., Viney, R., & Simon Pickard, A. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics, 36(2), 225–238.PubMedCrossRef King, M. T., Viney, R., & Simon Pickard, A. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics, 36(2), 225–238.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM policy & practice, 4(1), 2381468319842532.CrossRef McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM policy & practice, 4(1), 2381468319842532.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied health economics and health policy., 19(2), 191–202.PubMedCrossRef Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied health economics and health policy., 19(2), 191–202.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & Rowen, D. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–401.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & Rowen, D. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–401.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., & Viney, R. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., & Viney, R. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Finch, A., Gamper, E., Norman, R., et al. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10D value set for Spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39, 1085–1098.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Finch, A., Gamper, E., Norman, R., et al. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10D value set for Spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39, 1085–1098.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I., Gamper, E., et al. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of Life Research., 30, 2009–2019.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I., Gamper, E., et al. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of Life Research., 30, 2009–2019.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Kemmler, G., King, M., Norman, R., Viney, R., Gamper, E., & Holzner, B. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research Journal, Quality of Life Research, 28, 3197–3211.PubMedCrossRef Kemmler, G., King, M., Norman, R., Viney, R., Gamper, E., & Holzner, B. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research Journal, Quality of Life Research, 28, 3197–3211.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 191–202.PubMedCrossRef Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 191–202.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., Viney, R., et al. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., Viney, R., et al. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T., Noto, S., & Fukuda, T. (2021). Japanese population norms of EQ-5D-5L and health utilities index mark 3: disutility catalog by disease and symptom in community settings. Value Health, 24(8), 1193–1202.PubMedCrossRef Shiroiwa, T., Noto, S., & Fukuda, T. (2021). Japanese population norms of EQ-5D-5L and health utilities index mark 3: disutility catalog by disease and symptom in community settings. Value Health, 24(8), 1193–1202.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 306–318.PubMedCrossRef Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 306–318.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.PubMedCrossRef Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Norman, R., Viney, R., & Brazier, J. (2014). Valuing SF-6D health states using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making., 34(6), 773–786.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., Viney, R., & Brazier, J. (2014). Valuing SF-6D health states using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making., 34(6), 773–786.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Viney, R., Norman, R., & Brazier, J. E. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.PubMedCrossRef Viney, R., Norman, R., & Brazier, J. E. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation. PharmacoEconomics, 37(1), 29–43.PubMedCrossRef Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation. PharmacoEconomics, 37(1), 29–43.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Donkers, B., Jonker, M. F., & Stolk, E. A. (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient, 8(5), 373–384.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Donkers, B., Jonker, M. F., & Stolk, E. A. (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient, 8(5), 373–384.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Demirkale, F., Donovan, D., & Street, D. J. (2013). Constructing D-optimal symmetric stated preference discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 143, 1380–1391.CrossRef Demirkale, F., Donovan, D., & Street, D. J. (2013). Constructing D-optimal symmetric stated preference discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 143, 1380–1391.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. Wiley.CrossRef Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. Wiley.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Ware, J. E., Jr., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.PubMedCrossRef Ware, J. E., Jr., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organisation for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute., 85(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRef Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organisation for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute., 85(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Furukawa, T. A., Kawakami, N., Saitoh, M., et al. (2008). The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(3), 152–158.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Furukawa, T. A., Kawakami, N., Saitoh, M., et al. (2008). The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(3), 152–158.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Norman, R., Cronin, P., & Viney, R. (2013). A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy., 11(3), 287–298.PubMedCrossRef Norman, R., Cronin, P., & Viney, R. (2013). A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy., 11(3), 287–298.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Bansback, N., Brazier, J. E., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics., 31, 306–318.PubMedCrossRef Bansback, N., Brazier, J. E., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics., 31, 306–318.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Bleichrodt, N., Wakker, P., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty., 15(2), 107–114.CrossRef Bleichrodt, N., Wakker, P., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty., 15(2), 107–114.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference StataCorp. 2013 Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP StataCorp. 2013 Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP
47.
go back to reference Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16(8), 827–840.PubMedCrossRef Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16(8), 827–840.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics., 11(4), 427–444.CrossRef Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics., 11(4), 427–444.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., & Noto, S. (2016). Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan. Value Health, 19(5), 648–54.PubMedCrossRef Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., & Noto, S. (2016). Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan. Value Health, 19(5), 648–54.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Giesinger, J. M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., & Cottone, F. (2021). Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. Value Health., 24(4), 585–91.PubMedCrossRef Giesinger, J. M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., & Cottone, F. (2021). Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. Value Health., 24(4), 585–91.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Taira, N., et al. (2020). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health and quality of life outcomes, 18(1), 354.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Taira, N., et al. (2020). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health and quality of life outcomes, 18(1), 354.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Kaur, M. N., Skolasky, R. L., & Powell, P. A. (2022). Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Quality of Life Research, 31(4), 1191–1198.PubMedCrossRef Kaur, M. N., Skolasky, R. L., & Powell, P. A. (2022). Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Quality of Life Research, 31(4), 1191–1198.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Webb, E. J. D., Kind, P., Meads, D., & Martin, A. (2021). Does a health crisis change how we value health? Health Economics, 30(10), 2547–2560.PubMedCrossRef Webb, E. J. D., Kind, P., Meads, D., & Martin, A. (2021). Does a health crisis change how we value health? Health Economics, 30(10), 2547–2560.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire
Authors
T. Shiroiwa
M. T. King
R. Norman
F. Müller
R. Campbell
G. Kemmler
T. Murata
K. Shimozuma
T. Fukuda
Publication date
09-05-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03655-7

Other articles of this Issue 7/2024

Quality of Life Research 7/2024 Go to the issue