Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of self-rated health using EQ-5D VAS in the United States in 2002 and 2017

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare self-rated health among the United States general population in 2002 and 2017.

Methods

Secondary data were analyzed from two EQ-5D valuation studies conducted in 2002 and 2017. Both studies included the EQ-5D-3L self-classifier and visual analog scale (VAS), where health is rated from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health). VAS scores were compared between time points using regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic factors (Model 1), plus illness (Model 2), and health problems according to the EQ-5D classifier (Model 3).

Results

Mean VAS scores in 2002 [84.4 (SD = 16.1)] were not different from 2017 [84.6 (SD = 14.5)] (p = 0.63), nor different after adjusting for demographics (Model 1) or illness (Model 2). However, 2017 VAS mean scores were significantly higher than 2002 [2.2 (95% CI 1.36–3.10)] upon adjusting for the presence of dimension-specific health problems.

Conclusions

Self-rated health of the general US adult population in 2017 was similar to 2002, but after adjusting for health problems, scores were slightly higher in 2017. Sociodemographic shifts in age and education explain some of the differences in scores, and by removing health and sociodemographic factors, we found the VAS reveals self-rated health is slightly better in 2017 than 2002.

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

References

  1. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: OXFORD University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Data & Statistics | CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed November 10, 2018 from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf

  3. Feng, Y., Devlin, N., & Herdman, M. (2015). Assessing the health of the general population in England: How do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pickard, A. S., Hung, Y. T., Lin, F. J., & Lee, T. A. (2017). Patient experience-based value sets: Are they stable? Medical Care, 55(11), 979–984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Feeny, D., Kaplan, M. S., Huguet, N., & Mcfarland, B. H. (2010). Comparing population health in the United States and Canada. Population Health Metrics, 8, 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Parrish, R. G. (2010). Measuring population health outcomes. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(4), A71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pickard, A. S. (2015). Is it time to update societal value sets for preference-based measures of health? Pharmacoeconomics, 33(3), 191–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published April 9, 2018. Accessed November 10, 2018 from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2016.htm

  9. Feng, Y., Herdman, M., Van nooten, F., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Law, E. H., Pickard, A. S., Xie, F., Walton, S. M., Lee, T. A., & Schwartz, A. (2018). Parallel valuation: A direct comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L societal value sets. Medical Decision Making, 38(8), 968–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pickard, A. S., Law, E. H., Jiang, R., Oppe, M., Shaw, J. W., Xie, F., et al. (2018). United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: An initial model using a standardized protocol. Value in Health, 21, S4–S5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wisløff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rabin, R., Oemar, M., Oppe, M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-3L user guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQol Group: Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J.-E., Xie, F., Goeree, R., Gerstein, H. C., & O’reilly, D. (2010). Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value in Health, 13(4), 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huber, M., Vogelmann, M., & Leidl, R. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: Systematic variation in health perception. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (2017). Measuring global health: Motivation and evolution of the global burden of disease study. Lancet, 390(10100), 1460–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Blumenthal, D., Abrams, M., & Nuzum, R. (2015). The affordable care act at 5 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(16), 1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. The State of American Jobs. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. Published October 9, 2017. Accessed November 10, 2018 from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/

  20. Liu J. Views on End-of-Life Medical Treatments. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. Published October 31, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2018 from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/views-on-end-of-life-medical-treatments/

Download references

Funding

ASC was supported by the David J. Riback Fellowship Award at the UIC College of Pharmacy. The 2002 US EQ-5D-3L study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The 2017 US EQ-5D-5L study was supported by the EuroQol Research Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 833 South Wood St, MC 871, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Ashley S. Cha, Ernest H. Law, James W. Shaw & A. Simon Pickard

  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA

    James W. Shaw

Authors
  1. Ashley S. Cha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ernest H. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James W. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Simon Pickard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Simon Pickard.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

EHL has stock or ownership and is an employee of Pfizer Inc. and is an employee of Pfizer Inc. JWS has stock or ownership and is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb. ASP has received consulting income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Avexis. ASC has nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies 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. The present study was a secondary data analysis and was determined by the UIC IRB approval not to involve human subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cha, A.S., Law, E.H., Shaw, J.W. et al. A comparison of self-rated health using EQ-5D VAS in the United States in 2002 and 2017. Qual Life Res 28, 3065–3069 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02249-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02249-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation