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.
Aged
Asian People
/ psychology
China
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Health Surveys
/ standards
Humans
Japan
Male
Middle Aged
Quality of Life
/ psychology
Reproducibility of Results
Republic of Korea
Rural Population
/ statistics & numerical data
Socioeconomic Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
United Kingdom
United States
EQ-5D-3L
Health utility scores
Rural China
Tariffs
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jul 2020
13 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2019
accepted:
01
07
2020
entrez:
15
7
2020
pubmed:
15
7
2020
medline:
3
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32660494
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01476-z
pii: 10.1186/s12955-020-01476-z
pmc: PMC7359608
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Subventions
Organisme : Charity Project of National Ministry of Health
ID : 201202014
Organisme : Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81473033, 81773501
Organisme : national key R&D program of China
ID : 2016YFC0901404
Organisme : Digestive Medical Coordinated Development Center of Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals
ID : XXZ0204
Organisme : Science Foundation of Peking University Cancer Hospital
ID : 2017-4
Organisme : Open Project funded by Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research, Ministry of Education/Beijing
ID : 2017-10
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 Jun 23;11:1049-1056
pubmed: 28706443
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1187-93
pubmed: 19659703
Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):203-20
pubmed: 15725977
Qual Life Res. 2012 Feb;21(1):155-60
pubmed: 21505881
Ann Intern Med. 1993 Apr 15;118(8):622-9
pubmed: 8452328
Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5 Suppl 1):S60-4
pubmed: 21839901
Value Health. 2014 Jul;17(5):597-604
pubmed: 25128053
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 6;11(10):e0164334
pubmed: 27711169
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Sep 15;13:145
pubmed: 26374709
Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1523-32
pubmed: 16110932
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Aug;96(34):e7840
pubmed: 28834893
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Sep 23;6:71
pubmed: 18811935
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Feb 23;14(3):
pubmed: 28241507
Chin J Cancer Res. 2018 Apr;30(2):240-253
pubmed: 29861609
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):141-54
pubmed: 8733106
Health Econ. 2002 Jun;11(4):341-53
pubmed: 12007165
Gut. 2019 Feb;68(2):198-206
pubmed: 29306867
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683