Comparison of direct-measured and derived short form six dimensions (SF-6D) health preference values among chronic hepatitis B patients
- First Online:
The short form six dimensions (SF-6D) are derived from the SF-36 Health Survey with the intention that item data of the latter are often converted to a preference value, which was subsequently used in economic evaluations of interventions. The aim was to compare the equivalence and sensitivity of health preference values derived from the SF-36/SF-12 Health Surveys to that measured directly by the SF-6D for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.
This was a secondary analysis of the SF-6D and SF-36 data from a baseline sample of 589 patients with CHB infection with different stages of liver diseases. Degree of agreement (equivalence) between direct-measured and derived SF-6D values was determined using spearman correlation and intra-class correlation. Sensitivity and discriminative power of different SF-6D values were compared by standardized effect size and relative efficiency (RE) statistics.
Significant differences in the direct-measured or derived SF-6D preference values were found between CHB groups. Degree of agreement between SF-6D values was satisfactory. Direct-measured SF-6D was the most efficient, followed by SF-12-derived and the SF-36-derived was the least, based on the standardized effect size and the RE statistics. Sensitivity and discriminative power of direct-measured SF-6D were superior to derived SF-6D among people with different CHB health states.
Although direct-measured and derived SF-6D preference values had satisfactory sensitivity in discriminating between CHB groups, direct-measured SF-6D is the most sensitive and preferable method of obtaining health preference.
KeywordsChronic hepatitis B Health preference SF-6D SF-36 Sensitivity Discriminative power
Asymptomatic hepatitis B carrier
Chronic hepatitis B
Health-related qualify of life
Health utilities index
CHB with impaired liver function
Short form six dimensions
- 17.Hsu, P. C., Federico, C. A., Krajden, M., Yoshida, E. M., Bremner, K. E., Anderson, F. H., et al. (2012). Health utilities and psychometric quality of life in patients with early- and late-stage hepatitis C virus infection. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 27(1), 149–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.McDonough, C. M., Grove, M. R., Tosteson, T. D., Jon, D. L., Hilibrand, A. S., & Tosteson, A. N. A. (2005). Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) Participants. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1321–1332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ware, J. E., Snow, K., Kosinski, J. M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New English Medical Centre.Google Scholar
- 34.Lam, C. L. K., Lauder, I., Lam, T. P., & Gandek, B. (1999). Population based norming of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 health survey. Hong Kong Practitioner, 21(10), 460–470.Google Scholar
- 35.Lam, C. L. K., Wong, C. K. H., Lam, E. T. P., Lo, Y. Y. C., & Huang, W. W. (2010). Population norm of Chinese (HK) SF-12 health survey_version 2 of Chinese adults in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Practitioner, 32, 77–86.Google Scholar
- 40.Whitfield, K., Buchbinder, R., Segal, L., & Osborne, R. (2006). Parsimonious and efficient assessment of health-related quality of life in osteoarthritis research: Validation of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Wong, C. K. H., Mulhern, B., Wan, Y. F., & Lam, C. (Under review). Responsiveness of preference-based quality of life measure was improved by mapping algorithm in colorectal cancer.Google Scholar