Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Head-to-Head Comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L Value Sets in Thai Patients with Chronic Diseases

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Little was known about the head-to-head comparison of psychometric properties between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L or the different value sets of EQ-5D-5L. Therefore, this study set out to compare the psychometric properties including agreement, convergent, and known-group validity between the SF-6D and the EQ-5D-5L using the real value sets from Thailand and the UK in patients with chronic diseases.

Methods

356 adults taking a medication for at least 3 months were identified from a university hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, between July 2014 and March 2015. Agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots. Convergent validity was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS and SF-12v2. For known-groups validity, the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to examine the associations between SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L and patient characteristics.

Results

Agreements between the SF-6D and the EQ-5D-5L using Thai and UK value sets were fair, with ICCs of 0.45 and 0.49, respectively. Bland-Altman plots showed that the majority of the SF-6D index scores were lower than the EQ-5D-5L index scores. Both the EQ-5D-5L value sets were more related to the EQ-VAS and physical health, while the SF-6D was more associated with mental health. Both EQ-5D-5L value sets were more sensitive than the SF-6D in discriminating patients with different levels of more known groups except for adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions

The SF-6D and both EQ-5D-5L value sets appeared to be valid but sensitive to different outcomes in Thai patients with chronic diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of health economics. San Diego: Elsevier Science; 2014. p. 341–57.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Brooks R, EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect utility. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2008;91:S43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thavorncharoensup M. Utility measurement. In: Chaikledkaew U, Teerawatananont Y, editors. The guideline of health intervention and technology assessment in Thailand. 2nd ed. Bangkok: The Graphic System Company; 2013. p. 74–88.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, Kim SH, Chung SM. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2245–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scalone L, Coampichini R, Fagiouli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D-3L with the new version EQ-5D-5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1707–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Golicki D, Niewada M, Buczek J, Karlinska A, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1555–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;2:74. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14. doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Yfantopoulos JN, Chantzaras AE. Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. Eur J Health Econ. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.

  14. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Khudairy AA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1775–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Frieburg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;3:2355–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1717–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Chen G, Maxwell A. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of a 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:147–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell JA, Palmer AJ, Venn A, Sharman M, Otahal P, Neil A. A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. Patient. 2016;9:311–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mihalopoulos C, Chen G, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Richardson J. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205:390–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, Vathsala A, Chia KS, Luo N. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:1019–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brazier JE, Roberts JR, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:3015–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pattanaphesaj, J. Health related quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5L): measurement property testing and its preference-based score in Thai population. Bangkok: Mahidol University; 2014 (dissertation).

  26. Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. London: Office of Health Economics; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sakthong P, Chinthammit C, Sukarnjanaset P, Sonsa-ardjit N, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure of Pharmaceutical Therapy for Quality of Life (PROMPT-QoL). Value Health RI. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2017.02.003 (in print).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker D, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey. Lincoln: Quality Metric, Incorporated; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nunnally JC Jr. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, Incorporated; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brazier JE, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosner B. Fundamental of Biostatistics. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Thomson Learning; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cohen P. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14:1142–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;35:276–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sakthong P, Sakulbumrungsil R, Chabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference value sets in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:71. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Karlsson JA, Nilsson JA, Neovius M, Kristensen LE, Gülfe A, Saxne T, et al. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-years estimation: comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:2163–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Galante J, Augustovski F, Colantonio L, Bardach A, Caporale J, Marti SG, et al. Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states’ utility value sets for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011;14:60–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mozzi A, Meregaglia M, Lazzaro C, Tornatore V, Belfiglio M, Fattore G. A comparison of EuroQol 5-dimension health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference value sets in a patient sample. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:267–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. WHOQOL Group. The development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kunyken W, editors. Quality of life assessment: international perspectives. Berlin: Springer; 1994. p. 41–60.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the patients for their participation in the study and the hospital staff for assistance with the data collection.

Author contributions

All authors made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, acquisition of data, and related analysis and interpretation, and participated in drafting the article and revising it critically.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Phantipa Sakthong

  2. Pharmacy Unit, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

    Wipaporn Munpan

Authors
  1. Phantipa Sakthong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wipaporn Munpan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phantipa Sakthong.

Ethics declarations

This study was funded by Thailand Research Fund, Chulalongkorn University and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University (Grant Number: RSA 5580035).

Conflict of interest

None of the authors (Phantipa Sakthong and Wipaporn Munpan) declare any conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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 15, 669–679 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation