Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Population Norms for SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in China

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

Abstract

Objectives

To derive the population norms for EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among the Chinese general population.

Methods

Data collected alongside the Chinese SF-6Dv2 valuation study conducted between June and September 2019 were used. SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L, as well as social-demographic characteristics and self-reported chronic conditions, were collected through face-to-face interviews among a representative sample of the general population stratified by age, gender, education, and area of residence (urban/rural) in China. SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L responses were converted to utility values using the corresponding Chinese value sets. Utility values for both measures and EQ VAS scores were summarized by age and gender, and then described by different social-demographic characteristics and chronic conditions.

Results

A total of 3397 respondents (51.2% male, age range 18–90 years) were included. 420 (12.4%) and 1726 (50.8%) respondents reported no problems on all SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L dimensions, respectively. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] utility values were 0.827 (0.143) for SF-6Dv2 and 0.946 (0.096) for EQ-5D-5L. The mean (SD) EQ VAS score was 87.1 (11.5). Respondents who resided in rural areas, were married, and were employed had higher utility values. Respondents with memory-related diseases or stroke had lower utility values than those with other chronic conditions. Utility values decreased with the increase in the number of chronic conditions.

Conclusion

This study reports the first Chinese population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 derived using a representative sample of the Chinese general population. The norms can be used as references for economic evaluations and healthcare decision-making in China.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med Care. 1979;17:501–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217-232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rascati K. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Group TE. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12:1194–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, et al. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, 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 

  12. Poder TG, Fauteux V, He J, et al. Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 dimension version 2. Value Health. 2019;22:837–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazier JE, Mulhern BJ, Bjorner JB, et al. Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med Care. 2020;58:557–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu J, Xie S, He X, et al. The Simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric testing. Qual Life Res. 2020;29:1385–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu GGHS, Wu JH, Wu J, Dong C, Li H. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Beijing: China Market Press; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luo N, Li M, Liu GG, et al. Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: the response scaling approach. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:885–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for China. Value in health. 2017;20:662–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu J, Xie S, He X, et al. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:521–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kendall PC, Marrs-Garcia A, Nath SR, et al. Normative comparisons for the evaluation of clinical significance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:285–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shiroiwa T, Noto S, Fukuda T. Japanese population norms of EQ-5D-5L and health utilities index mark 3: disutility catalog by disease and symptom in community settings. Value Health. 2021;24:1193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams A. Calculating the global burden of disease: time for a strategic reappraisal? Health Econ. 1999;8:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Poder TG, Carrier N, Kouakou CRC. Quebec health-related quality-of-life population norms using the EQ-5D-5L: decomposition by sociodemographic data and health problems. Value in health. 2020;23:251–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bailey H, Janssen MF, La Foucade A, et al. EQ-5D-5L population norms and health inequalities for Trinidad and Tobago. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0214283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Janssen MF, Szende A, Cabases J, et al. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:205–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Palmer AJ, Campbell JA, de Graaff B, et al. Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia. Health Econ. 2021;30:1950–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jiang R, Janssen MFB, Pickard AS. US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:803–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Grochtdreis T, Dams J, König HH, et al. Health-related quality of life measured with the EQ-5D-5L: estimation of normative index values based on a representative German population sample and value set. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:933–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, et al. Health related quality of life norm data of the Italian general population: results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2015;12:24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bailey HH, Janssen MF, Varela RO, et al. EQ-5D-5L Population Norms and Health Inequality in Colombia. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021;26:24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bailey H, Janssen MF, La Foucade A, et al. EQ-5D self-reported health in Barbados and Jamaica with EQ-5D-5L population norms for the English-speaking Caribbean. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Golicki D, Niewada M. EQ-5D-5L Polish population norms. Arch Med Sci. 2017;13:191–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Prevolnik Rupel V, Ogorevc M. EQ-5D-5L Slovenian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Olsen JA, Lindberg MH, Lamu AN. Health and wellbeing in Norway: population norms and the social gradient. Soc Sci Med. 2020;259:113155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hernandez G, Garin O, Pardo Y, et al. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and reference norms for the Spanish population. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:2337–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Garcia-Gordillo MA, Adsuar JC, Olivares PR. Normative values of EQ-5D-5L: in a Spanish representative population sample from Spanish Health Survey, 2011. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:1313–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sullivan T, Turner RM, Derrett S, et al. New Zealand Population Norms for the EQ-5D-5L Constructed From the Personal Value Sets of Participants in a National Survey. Value in Health. 2021.

  37. Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, et al. The health of the residents of Ireland: Population norms for Ireland based on the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system – a cross sectional study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res. 2018;1:22. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12848.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. McCaffrey N, Kaambwa B, Currow DC, et al. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Le Hoang QN, et al. Quality of life profile of general Vietnamese population using EQ-5D-5L. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:199.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, et al. Quality of life of the Indonesian general population: test-retest reliability and population norms of the EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-BREF. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0197098.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Encheva M, Djambazov S, Vekov T, et al. EQ-5D-5L Bulgarian population norms. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:1169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Health Quality Council of Alberta. EQ-5D-5L index norms for alberta population. Alberta: Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Emrani Z, Akbari Sari A, Zeraati H, et al. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5 L: population norms for the capital of Iran. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hołownia-Voloskova M, Tarbastaev A, Golicki D. Population norms of health-related quality of life in Moscow, Russia: the EQ-5D-5L-based survey. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:831–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. van den Berg B. Sf-6d population norms. Health Econ. 2012;21:1508–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Norman R, Church J, van den Berg B, et al. Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2013;37:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB, Kowalski S, et al. Brazilian urban population norms derived from the health-related quality of life SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2559–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Garcia-Gordillo MA, Collado-Mateo D, Olivares PR, et al. Chilean population norms derived from the health-related quality of Life SF-6D. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:675–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. SF-6D Portuguese population norms. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:707–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wong EL, Cheung AW, Wong AY, et al. Normative profile of health-related quality of life for Hong Kong general population using preference-based instrument EQ-5D-5L. Value in health. 2019;22:916–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Yang Z, Busschbach J, Liu G, et al. EQ-5D-5L norms for the urban Chinese population in China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Wong CKH, Mulhern B, Cheng GHL, et al. SF-6D population norms for the Hong Kong Chinese general population. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:2349–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D Registration. https://registration.euroqol.org. Accessed 23 Dec 2021.

  56. The University of Sheffield. Measuring and Valuing Health – SF-6D. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/research/themes/valuing-health#SF-6D. Accessed 23 Dec 2021.

  57. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Sixth National Census 2010. http://stats.tj.gov.cn/nianjian/2017nj/zk/indexch.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2021.

  58. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook. 2018. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexch.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2021.

  59. Whitehurst DGT, Brazier JE, Viney R, Mulhern BJ. The SF-6Dv2: how does the new classification system impact the distribution of responses compared with the original SF-6D? Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(12):1283–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. McDool E, Mukuria C, Brazier J. A Comparison of the SF-6Dv2 and SF-6D UK utility values in a mixed patient and healthy population. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(8):929–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Marten O, Greiner W. EQ-5D-5L reference values for the German general elderly population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Filatova S, Upadhyaya S, Kronstrom K, et al. Time trends in the incidence of diagnosed depression among people aged 5–25 years living in Finland 1995–2012. Nord J Psychiatry. 2019;73:475–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bretschneider J, Janitza S, Jacobi F, et al. Time trends in depression prevalence and health-related correlates: results from population-based surveys in Germany 1997–1999 vs. 2009–2012. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:394.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhang T, Shi W, Huang Z, et al. Influence of culture, residential segregation and socioeconomic development on rural elderly health-related quality of life in Guangxi, China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Dong WL, Li YC, Wang ZQ, et al. Self-rated health and health-related quality of life among Chinese residents, China, 2010. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Pickard AS, et al. Transforming latent utilities to health utilities: east does not meet west. Health Econ. 2017;26:1524–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, et al. Comparison of population health status in six european countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care. 2009;47:255–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zajacova A, Lawrence EM. The relationship between education and health: reducing disparities through a contextual approach. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:273–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Xie S, Wu J, He X, et al. Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF-6Dv2 in China. Value Health. 2020;23:1391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 71673197 and No. 72174142). We would like to thank all the interviewers and respondents for taking part in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Shitong Xie & Feng Xie

  2. School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

    Shitong Xie & Jing Wu

  3. Center for Social Science Survey and Data, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

    Jing Wu

  4. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Feng Xie

Authors
  1. Shitong Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feng Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing Wu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71673197 and No. 72174142).

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

JW reported receiving grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China during the conduct of the study. No other conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University (No. 20180615) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed about their freedom of refusal. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

The data are available only to the authors because we obtained informed consent from the respondents under that condition.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Concept and design: SX, JW, and FX. Acquisition of data: SX, JW. Analysis and interpretation of data: SX, FX. Drafting of the manuscript: SX, FX. Statistical analysis: SX, FX. Obtaining funding: JW. Supervision: JW, FX. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 1849 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, S., Wu, J. & Xie, F. Population Norms for SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in China. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 20, 573–585 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00715-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00715-2

Search

Navigation