A comparison of measurement properties between UK SF-6D and English EQ-5D-5L and Thai EQ-5D-5L value sets in general Thai population

References

• Andresen EM, Meyers AR. Health-related quality of life outcomes measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(12 Suppl 2):S30–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;23(1):60.
   Google Scholar
• Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, et al. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(1):13–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect: utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(Suppl 2):S43–52. .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement of utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97(Suppl 5):S43–49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res. 1988;23(2):203–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329(7459):224–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Drummond M, et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2693–2710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, et al.. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of National Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020.(in print). DOI:10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordlund A, Ekberg K, Kristenson M. EQ-5D in a general population survey–a description of the most commonly reported EQ-5D health states using the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):1099–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martí-Pastor M, Pont A, Ávila M, et al. Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Popul Health Metr. 2018;16(1):14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38(1):115–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Ribeiro FP, et al. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):621–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1078–1086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vainiola T, Pettilä V, Roine RP, et al. Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):2090–2093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, et al. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):87–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavem K, Bjornaes H, Lossius MI. Properties of the 15D and EQ-5D utility measures in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2001;44(2–3):179–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, et al. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):853–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao L, Liu X, Liu D, et al. Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in the general population of Chengdu city in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(11):e14719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, et al. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):3015–3022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangwanrattanakul K, Parmontree P. Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population. Qual Life Res. 2020. (in print). DOI:10.1007/s11136-020-02595-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CKH, Mulhern B, Cheng GHL, et al. SF-6D population norms for the Hong Kong Chinese general population. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(9):2349–2359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz LN, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians. Value Health. 2011;14(5 Suppl 1):S108–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, et al. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):1019–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JC, Liu-Ambrose T, Khan KM, et al. SF-6D and EQ-5D result in widely divergent incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in a clinical trial of older women: implications for health policy decisions. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(7):1849–1857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam CL, Brazier J, McGhee SM. Valuation of the SF-6D Health States Is Feasible, Acceptable, Reliable, and Valid in a Chinese Population. Value Health. 2008;11(2):295–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15(11):1229–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41(7):791–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, et al. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(2):147–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Wong CKH, McGhee SM, et al. A comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavem K, Frøland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):971–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. et al. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ. 2004;3(2):103–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1061–1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14(11):1169–1189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Wang P, Fu AZ, et al. Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Med Care. 2012;50(7):627–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaweethamcharoen T, Noparatayaporn P, Sritippayawan S, et al.. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai patients on peritoneal dialysis. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;18:59–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sakthong P, Munpan W. A head-to-head comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L value sets in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(5):669–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chariyalertsak S, Wansom T, Kawichai S, et al. Reliability and validity of Thai versions of the MOS-HIV and SF12 quality of life questionnaires in people living with HIV/AIDS. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phantipa S, Vijj K, Win -W-W. Assessment of health-related quality of life in Thai patients after heart surgery. Asian Biomed. 2017;9(2):203–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker D, et al. How to score SF-12 items. SF-12 v2: how to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey. 2002:29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goni JM, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oemar M, Janssen B. EQ-5D-5L user guide-basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group; 2013. p. 28.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1065–1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):2245–2253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1205–1216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen P. Regression and correlation. Statistic in medicine. Boston: Litttle Brown and Company; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ye Z, Sun L, Wang Q. A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):1043–1049.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dritsaki M, Petrou S, Williams M, et al. An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health. 2010;13(2):222–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, et al. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):7–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlinger C, Bamber L, Leverkus F, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: impact on the interpretation of clinical study results. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zrubka Z, Beretzky Z, Hermann Z, et al. A comparison of European, Polish, Slovenian and British EQ-5D-3L value sets using a Hungarian sample of 18 chronic diseases. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):119–132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(1):15–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang F, Devlin N, Luo N. Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):99–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar