Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients

被引:125
作者
Lamers, L. A.
Bouwmans, C. A. M.
van Straten, A.
Donker, M. C. H.
Hakkaart, L.
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Med Ctr, Inst Med Technol Assessment BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
preference-based measures of health; EQ-5D; SF-6D; cost-utility analysis; mental health;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1125
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Various preference-based measures of health are available for use as an outcome measure in cost-utility analysis. The aim of this study is to compare two such measures EQ-5D and SF-6D in mental health patients. Baseline data from a Dutch multi-centre randomised trial of 616 patients with mood and/or anxiety disorders were used. Mean and median EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities were compared, both in the total sample and between severity subgroups based on quartiles of SCL-90 scores. Utilities were expected to decline with increased severity. Both EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities differed significantly between patients of adjacent severity groups. Mean utilities increased from 0.51 at baseline to 0.68 at 1.5 years follow-up for EQ-5D and from 0.58 to 0.70 for SF-6D. For all severity subgroups, the mean change in EQ-5D utilities as well as in SF-6D utilities was statistically significant. Standardised response means were higher for SF-6D utilities. We concluded that both EQ-5D and SF-6D discriminated between severity subgroups and captured improvements in health over time. However, the use of EQ-5D resulted in larger health gains and consequent lower cost-utility ratios, especially for the subgroup with the highest severity of mental health problems. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1229 / 1236
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT
[2]  
ARRINDELL W, 2003, SCL 99 MANUAL MULTID
[3]   A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities [J].
Bleichrodt, H .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 11 (05) :447-456
[4]   Probability weighting in choice under risk: An empirical test [J].
Bleichrodt, H .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2001, 23 (02) :185-198
[5]   Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility [J].
Bleichrodt, H ;
Pinto, JL ;
Wakker, PP .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2001, 47 (11) :1498-1514
[6]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[7]   A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Tsuchiya, A ;
Busschbach, J .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (09) :873-884
[8]   EuroQol: The current state of play [J].
Brooks, R .
HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 37 (01) :53-72
[9]   Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[10]  
Dolan P, 1996, HEALTH ECON, V5, P141, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO