Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Relative importance of the EQ-5D five dimensions among patients with chronic diseases in South Korea – a comparison with the general population preference weights

Author: Jihyung Hong

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Who should provide the values of health states in economic evaluations of health technologies has long been the subject of debate. This study examined and compared the relative importance of the EQ-5D five dimensions, using both patient-reported values and general population tariffs, among patients with chronic diseases in South Korea and also assessed the pattern of the discrepancy between patient and general population values by type of chronic diseases.

Methods

Data were taken from the 2013 Korea Health Panel survey. This analysis focused on adult patients with chronic diseases (n = 3216). Patient-reported EQ-5D profiles and visual analogue scale (VAS) values were used to assess the relative importance of the EQ-5D five dimensions among these patients, using a linear regression model. The relative importance of the EQ-5D dimensions was then compared to the EQ-5D tariffs elicited from the general population. The relative magnitude of the discrepancies between patient and general population values was also assessed by type of chronic diseases.

Results

Anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort appeared to have the largest impact on the self-rated patient VAS, which fairly contrasted with the general population model. In addition, a further regression analysis showed that the discrepancy between patient and general population values varied with the type of chronic diseases. The greatest discrepancy between the two was found in patients with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, neoplasms and diseases of the digestive system.

Conclusions

These analyses revealed differences in the relative weights attached to the EQ-5D dimensions between patient groups and the general population, particularly in those ‘non-tangible’ dimensions. These differences consequently led to greater discrepancies between patient and general population values in certain patient groups, which can have significant implications for resource allocation decisions in South Korea.
Literature
1.
Bae S, Lee S, Bae EY, Jang S. Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version) : consensus and compromise. PharmacoEconomics 2013;31(4):257–267.
2.
Yang BM, Bae EY, Kim J. Economic evaluation and pharmaceutical reimbursement reform in South Korea's National Health Insurance. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(1):179–87.CrossRef
3.
Yim EY, Lim SH, Oh MJ, Park HK, Gong JR, Park SE, Yi SY. Assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluations submitted for reimbursement in Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(1 Suppl):S104–10.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(9):705–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
7.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). Korean pharmacoeconomic guideline [의약품 경제성평가지침 및 자료작성 요령 in Korean]. Seoul: HIRA; 2011.
9.
Gold ME, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
10.
11.
Hao Y, Wolfram V, Cook J. A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research: CEOR. 2016;8:293-303.
12.
Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. Population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):E57–63.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2149–58.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Loewenstein G, Ubel PA. Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy. J Public Econ. 2008;92(8):1795–810.CrossRef
15.
Wilson TD, Gilbert DT. Explaining away: a model of affective adaptation. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008;3(5):370–86.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Noel CW, Lee DJ, Kong Q, Xu W, Simpson C, Brown D, Gilbert RW, Gullane PJ, Irish JC, Huang SH, et al. Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck Cancer. JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery. 2015;141(8):696–703.CrossRef
17.
Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 1999;8(6):541–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Dolders MG, Zeegers MP, Groot W, Ament A. A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):653–64.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Karimi M, Peasgood T, Tsuchiya A, Ratcliffe J. Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(6):881-91.
22.
Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ. 2009;18(3):363–72.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Burstrom K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LA, Zethraeus N. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burstrom K. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):693–703.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rand-Hendriksen K, Augestad LA, Kristiansen IS, Stavem K. Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1005–12.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, Kind P, Kweon SS, Kim YT. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1187–93.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Jo MW, Yun SC, Lee SI. Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with the time trade-off method in South Korea. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1186–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kang EJ, Shin HS, Park HJ, Jo MW, Kim NY. A valuation of health status using EQ-5D the Korean journal of health economics and. Policy. 2006;12(2):19–43.
29.
The Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, The National Health Insurance Service. Korea Health Panel Data Version 1.3 (2008–2014) 2017.
30.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A: A social tariff for EuroQoL: results from a UK general population survey (Discussion paper 138.) In.: University of York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995.
31.
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N (eds.): EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide (EuroQol Group Monographs Volume 2). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2007.
32.
Feng Y, Herdman M, van Nooten F, Cleeland C, Parkin D, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Devlin NJ. An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2067–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
34.
Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586–92.CrossRefPubMed
35.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2009.
36.
Ogorevc M, Murovec N, Fernandez NB, Rupel VP. Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states. Health Policy. 2017.
37.
38.
McPherson K, Myers J, Taylor WJ, McNaughton HK, Weatherall M. Self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity in chronic and disabling conditions. Med Care. 2004;42(11):1143–51.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
41.
Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, Silove D. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980–2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):476–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
43.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
44.
Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 1999;3(9):i-iv, 1–164.
45.
van Dongen JM, Van den Berg B, Bekkering GE, Van Tulder MW, Ostelo R. Patient versus general population health state valuations: a case study of non-specific low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1627–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Jelsma J, Maart S. Should additional domains be added to the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument for community-based studies? An analytical descriptive study Population Health Metrics. 2015;13:13.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Pietersma S, de Vries M, van den Akker-van Marle ME. Domains of quality of life: results of a three-stage Delphi consensus procedure among patients, family of patients, clinicians, scientists and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1543–56.PubMed
48.
Menon B, Cherkil S, Aswathy S, Unnikrishnan AG, Rajani G. The process and challenges in the translation of World Health Organization quality of life (WHOQOL- BREF) to a regional language. Malayalam Indian J Psychol Med. 2012;34(2):149–52.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Relative importance of the EQ-5D five dimensions among patients with chronic diseases in South Korea – a comparison with the general population preference weights
Author
Jihyung Hong
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0987-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Determinants of quality of life among Malaysian cancer patients: a cross-sectional study

Short report

‘Self body-management and thinness in youth: survey study on Italian girls’

Research

Consistency of health-related quality of life among people living with HIV: Latent state-trait analysis

Research

Quality of life of parents of very preterm infants 4 months after birth: a mixed methods study

Research

Impact of parents’ need for care on middle-aged women’s lifestyle and psychological distress: evidence from a nationwide longitudinal survey in Japan

Review

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review