Measuring health-related utility: Why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D?

被引：55

作者：

Bryan S. ^{[1
,3
]}

Longworth L. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Health Economics Facility, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham

[2] Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University

[3] Health Economics Facility, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2RT

来源：

The European Journal of Health Economics | 2005年 / 6卷 / 3期

关键词：

EQ-5D; Health utilities; Quality-adjusted life-years; SF-6D;

D O I：

10.1007/s10198-005-0299-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

There remains considerable disagreement concerning the preferred generic utility-based measure of health-related quality of life for use in constructing quality-adjusted life years. The recent appearance (in a published form) of a new measure, the SF-6D, has highlighted this issue. The SF-6D and EQ-5D have many similarities, but marked variation has been shown in the results generated by the two instruments. The study reported here is an exploration of why such divergent results exist. There are two possible explanations: variation in the descriptive component of the instruments and variation in the values applied to health states. The results suggest two important conclusions. First, the SF-6D can describe severe health states, including states that (according to the EQ-5D scoring algorithm) are viewed as worse than the state of being 'dead'. Second, much of the large discrepancy between the results generated using the two instruments appears to stem from very different valuations being placed on similar health states. © Springer Medizin Verlag 2005.

引用

页码：253 / 260

页数：7

共 28 条

[1]

Bosch J., Hunink M., Comparison of the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication, Qual Life Res, 9, pp. 591-601, (2000)

[2]

Brazier J., Deverill M., Green C., Harper R., Booth A., A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation, Health Technol Assess, 3, 9, (1999)

[3]

Brazier J., Roberts J., Tsuchiya A., Busschbach J., A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups, Health Econ, 13, pp. 873-884, (2001)

[4]

Brazier J., Roberts J., Deverill M., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36, J Health Econ, 21, pp. 271-292, (2002)

[5]

Coons S., Rao S., Keininger D., Hays R., A comparative review of generic quality of life instruments, Pharmacoeconomics, 17, pp. 13-35, (2000)

[6]

Dolan P., Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states, Med Care, 35, pp. 1095-1108, (1997)

[7]

Dolan P., Sutton M., Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values, Soc Sci Med, 10, pp. 1519-1530, (1997)

[8]

Elvik R., The validity of using health state indexes in measuring the consequences of traffic injury for public health, Soc Sci Med, 40, pp. 1385-1398, (1995)

[9]

Glick H., Polsky D., Willke R., Schulman K., A comparison of preference assessment instruments used in a clinical trial: Responses to the visual analog scale from the EuroQol EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index, Med Decis Making, 19, pp. 265-274, (1999)

[10]

De Haan R., Aaronson N., Limberg M., Langton R., Van Crevel H., Measuring quality of life in stroke, Stroke, 24, pp. 320-327, (1993)

← 1 2 3 →