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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
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.
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.
Brooks R, EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect utility. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2008;91:S43–52.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brazier JE, Roberts JR, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Nunnally JC Jr. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, Incorporated; 2000.
Brazier JE, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–9.
Rosner B. Fundamental of Biostatistics. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Thomson Learning; 2000.
Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
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.
Cohen P. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale; 1988.
Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14:1142–5.
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3