Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

An evaluation of EQ-5D-3L health utility scores using five country-specific tariffs in a rural population aged 45–69 years in Hua county, Henan province, China

Authors: Hui Wang, Changqi Cao, Chuanhai Guo, Yu He, Fenglei Li, Ruiping Xu, Mengfei Liu, Zhen Liu, Yaqi Pan, Fangfang Liu, Ying Liu, Jingjing Li, Hong Cai, Zhonghu He, Yang Ke

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

This study aims to compare the performance of the recently developed Chinese (city) tariff of the EQ-5D-3L against the UK, US, Japanese and Korean tariffs in a general rural population in China.

Methods

From November 2015 to September 2016, 12,085 permanent residents aged 45–69 from 257 villages randomly selected from Hua County, Henan Province, China, were interviewed using EQ-5D-3L, and a one-on-one questionnaire investigation was used to collect data on factors associated with HRQOL. The health utility scores were calculated using the UK, US, Japanese, Korean and Chinese (city) tariffs. The agreement, known-groups validity and sensitivity of these five tariffs were evaluated. Transition scores for pairs of observed EQ-5D-3L health states were calculated and compared.

Results

The Korean tariff yielded the highest mean health utility score (0.963), followed by the Chinese (city) (0.948), US (0.943), UK (0.930) and Japanese (0.921) tariffs, but the differences in the scores of any two tariffs did not exceed the MCID. The Chinese (city) tariff showed higher ICC values (ICCs> 0.89, 95% CI:0.755–0.964) and narrower limits of agreement (0.099–0.167) than the Korean tariff [(ICCs> 0.71, 95% CI:0.451–0.955); (0.146–0.253)]. The Chinese (city) tariff had a higher relative efficiency and effect size statistics in 10 out of 11 variables as compared to the UK, US and Japanese tariffs. The Chinese (city) tariff (0.215) was associated with moderate mean absolute transition scores compared with the UK (0.342), US (0.230), Japanese (0.149) and Korean (0.189) tariffs for 1485 observed pairs of the EQ-5D-3L health states.

Conclusions

Health utility scores derived from the five tariffs differed. The Chinese (city) tariff was the most suitable of these tariffs and was without obvious weakness. We recommend adopting the Chinese (city) tariff when applying EQ-5D-3L to assess quality of life among the elderly in China’s agricultural region with socio-economic status similar to Hua County. Results of this study had provided a crucial basis for health surveys, health promotion projects, health intervention trials, and health economic evaluation taking HRQOL as a target in rural areas of China.

Available only for authorised users

Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009.CrossRefPubMed

Dong C, Li H, Guan H. China guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and manual. Beijing: The Science Press; 2015.

Wang HM, Patrick DL, Edwards TC, Skalicky AM, Zeng HY, Gu WW. Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):155–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9915-6.CrossRefPubMed

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::aid-hec189>3.0.co;2-n.CrossRefPubMed

Galante J, Augustovski F, Colantonio L, Bardach A, Caporale J, Marti SG, et al. Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states' utility weights for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011;14(5 Suppl 1):S60–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

Kiadaliri AA, Eliasson B, Gerdtham UG. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0344-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, Gao C, Luo N. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2014;17(5):597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.673.CrossRefPubMed

Wang H, Pan Y, Guo C, Li F, Xu R, Liu M, et al. Health-related quality of life among rural residents aged 45–69 years in Hua County, Henan Province, China: Results of ESECC Trial for esophageal cancer screening with endoscopy. Chin J Cancer Res. 2018;30(2):240–53. https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.02.07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Huang W, Yu H, Liu C, Liu G, Wu Q, Zhou J, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life of Chinese adults in Heilongjiang using EQ-5D-3L. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(3):e224. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030224.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Zhao Y, Li SP, Liu L, Zhang JL, Chen G. Does the choice of tariff matter?: a comparison of EQ-5D-5L utility scores using Chinese, UK, and Japanese tariffs on patients with psoriasis vulgaris in central South China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(34):e7840. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007840.CrossRef

12.

Liu L, Li S, Wang M, Chen G. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L health state utilities using four country-specific tariffs on a breast cancer patient sample in mainland China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1049–56. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.S138028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Wu C, Gong Y, Wu J, Zhang S, Yin X, Dong X, et al. Chinese version of the EQ-5D preference weights: applicability in a Chinese general population. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164334.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

He Z, Liu Z, Liu M, Guo C, Xu R, Li F, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer in China (ESECC): design and preliminary results of a population-based randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2019;68(2):198–206. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315520.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00579.x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical assessment. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRef

21.

Cohen J. A power primer. Psycho Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRef

22.

Shi J, Huang H, Guo L, Shi D, Gu X, Liang H, et al. Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2016;388(S1):S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31956-0.CrossRef

23.

Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: An evaluation of EQ-5D-3L health utility scores using five country-specific tariffs in a rural population aged 45–69 years in Hua county, Henan province, China
Authors: Hui Wang
Changqi Cao
Chuanhai Guo
Yu He
Fenglei Li
Ruiping Xu
Mengfei Liu
Zhen Liu
Yaqi Pan
Fangfang Liu
Ying Liu
Jingjing Li
Hong Cai
Zhonghu He
Yang Ke
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01476-z

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

An evaluation of EQ-5D-3L health utility scores using five country-specific tariffs in a rural population aged 45–69 years in Hua county, Henan province, China

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review

A new integrated approach for adolescent health and well-being: the AVATAR project

Modelling disease course in amyotrophic lateral Sclerosis: pseudo-longitudinal insights from cross-sectional health-related quality of life data

Impact of non-cardiovascular comorbidities on the quality of life of patients with chronic heart failure: a scoping review

How does the EQ-5D-Y Proxy version 1 perform in 3, 4 and 5-year-old children?

Development of the Thalassaemia Adult Life Index (ThALI)