Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the EQ-5D and SF-6D within socio-demographic and clinical groups in a representative sample (n = 1,005) of the Greek general population and to examine mean utility differences across groups differing in health in this population and in a highly morbid disease sample (diabetes, n = 215).

Methods

Association and level of agreement between instruments were estimated with Pearson’s r and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Paired-samples t-test was used to identify significant score differences, which were regarded as minimally important differences (MID) when they exceeded 0.03. The EQ-VAS was used to classify individuals into health status groups, covering the range from very poor to very good health, and the same classification was used in the diabetes sample.

Results

EQ-5D and SF-6D were in agreement and strongly correlated over the entire sample (ICC = 0.536, P < 0.001 and r = 0.662, P < 0.001), but correlation varied according to socio-demographic factors and clinical conditions. In healthier responders, EQ-5D scores were significantly higher than SF-6D scores (P < 0.001) and differences constituted MIDs. Contrarily, in individuals with clinical conditions, SF-6D scores were predominantly higher than EQ-5D. The pattern of results was replicated in the disease sample as well.

Conclusions

The hypotheses that EQ-5D generates higher scores in healthier populations and the SF-6D in less healthier groups were confirmed. Based on the evidence provided here, EQ-5D and SF-6D measuring discrepancies generate utility differences across VAS-based health groups, which warrant further within-sample investigation.

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. Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B. J., Stoddard, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A. (1994). Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Medical Decision Making, 14, 9–18. doi:10.1177/0272989X9401400102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynänen, O. P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22, 235–241. doi:10.1017/S0266462306051051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosser, R., & Kind, P. (1978). A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology, 7, 347–358. doi:10.1093/ije/7.4.347.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker & R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of life assessment. Key issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1988). A general health policy model: Update and applications. Health Services Research, 23, 203–235.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34, 702–722. doi:10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108. doi:10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. The EuroQol group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 16, 199–208. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 37, 53–72. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5, 141–154. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1115–1128. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–180. doi:10.1007/BF00435221.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: Why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? The European Journal of Health Economics, 6, 253–260. doi:10.1007/s10198-005-0299-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Longworth, L., & Bryan, S. (2003). An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Economics, 12, 1061–1067. doi:10.1002/hec.787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gerard, K., Nicholson, T., Mullee, M., Mehta, R., & Roderick, P. (2004). EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3, 91–102. doi:10.2165/00148365-200403020-00005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15, 1229–1236. doi:10.1002/hec.1125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Xie, F., Li, S. C., Luo, N., Lo, N. N., Yeo, S. J., Yang, K. Y., et al. (2007). Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57, 1043–1049. doi:10.1002/art.22883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884. doi:10.1002/hec.866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Stel, H. F., & Buskens, E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 20. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14, 1169–1189. doi:10.1002/hec.1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J., 3rd (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9, 262–271. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00108.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barton, G. R., Sach, T. H., Avery, A. J., Jenkinson, C., Doherty, M. Whynes, D. K., et al. (2008). A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged ≥45 years. Health Economics, 17, 815–832. doi:10.1002/hec.1298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yfantopoulos, J. (2001). The Greek version of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 180–191.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakas, D., Yfantopoulos, J., Dimitrakaki, C., & Tountas, Y. (2008). Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value in Health, 11, 1162–1169. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00356.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pappa, E., Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. (2005). Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1433–1438. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-6014-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1959–1965. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-3866-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. (2008). An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients’ life expectancy. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 86, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Maddigan, S. L., Feeny, D. H., & Johnson, J. A. (2005). Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1311–1320. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-6640-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Papadopoulos, A. A., Kontodimopoulos, N., Frydas, A., Ikonomakis, E., & Niakas, D. (2007). Predictors of health-related quality of life in type II diabetic patients in Greece. BMC Public Health, 7, 186. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Franks, P., Gold, M. R., & Fiscella, K. (2003). Sociodemographics, self-rated health, and mortality in the US. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 2505–2514. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00281-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang, Y., & Hesser, J. E. (2006). Associations between health-related quality of life and demographics and health risks. Results from Rhode Island’s 2002 behavioral risk factor survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 14. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lam, C. L., Fong, D. Y., Lauder, I., & Lam, T. P. (2002). The effect of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) on health service utilisation of a Chinese population. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 1635–1646. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00296-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pappa, E., & Niakas, D. (2006). Assessment of health care needs and utilization in a mixed public-private system: The case of the Athens area. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 146. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000172050.67085.4f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., et al. (1995). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7, 311–322. doi:10.1023/A:1008894502042.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7, 155–166. doi:10.1023/A:1008809610703.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316, 736–741.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121. doi:10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lubetkin, E. I., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. R. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Quality of Life Research, 14, 2187–2196. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-8028-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Savoia, E., Fantini, M. P., Pandolfi, P. P., Dallolio, L., & Collina, N. (2006). Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 47. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jia, H., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2005). The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general adult US population. Journal of Public Health, 27, 156–164. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sach, T. H., Barton, G. R., Doherty, M., Muir, K. R., Jenkinson, C., & Avery, A. J. (2007). The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life: Comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D. International Journal of Obesity, 31, 189–196. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803365.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Barton, G. R., Sach, T. H., Doherty, M., Avery, A. J., Jenkinson, C., & Muir, K. R. (2008). An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. The European Journal of Health Economics, 9, 237–249. doi:10.1007/s10198-007-0068-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Walters, S. J., & Campbell, M. J. (2004). The use of bootstrap methods for analysing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF-36). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-2-70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics, 11, 447–456. doi:10.1002/hec.688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics, 17, 151–165. doi:10.2165/00019053-200017020-00004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15, 209–231. doi:10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science and Medicine, 44, 1519–1530. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00271-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Fortin, M., Hudon, C., Dubois, M. F., Almirall, J., Lapointe, L., & Soubhi, H. (2005). Comparative assessment of three different indices of multimorbidity for studies on health-related quality of life. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 74. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tokmakidis, S. P., Christodoulos, A. D., & Mantzouranis, N. I. (2007). Validity of self-reported anthropometric values used to assess body mass index and estimate obesity in Greek school children. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 305–310. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stergiou, G. S., Thomopoulou, G. C., Skeva, I. I., & Mountokalakis, T. D. (1999). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in Greece: the Didima study. American Journal of Hypertension, 12, 959–965. doi:10.1016/S0895-7061(99)00136-3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

    Nick Kontodimopoulos, Evelina Pappa, Angelos A. Papadopoulos, Yannis Tountas & Dimitris Niakas

Authors
  1. Nick Kontodimopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evelina Pappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angelos A. Papadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yannis Tountas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dimitris Niakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Kontodimopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A.A. et al. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res 18, 87–97 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation