An evaluation of EQ-5D-3L health utility scores using five country-specific tariffs in a rural population aged 45-69 years in Hua county, Henan province, China.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101153626 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1477-7525 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14777525 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Qual Life Outcomes Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, c2003-
    • Subject Terms:
      Asian People/*psychology ; Asian People/*statistics & numerical data ; Cost-Benefit Analysis/*statistics & numerical data ; Health Surveys/*standards ; Quality of Life/*psychology ; Rural Population/*statistics & numerical data ; Surveys and Questionnaires/*standards; Aged ; China ; Female ; Humans ; Japan ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; Republic of Korea ; Socioeconomic Factors ; United Kingdom ; United States
    • Abstract:
      Background: This study aims to compare the performance of the recently developed Chinese (city) tariff of the EQ-5D-3L against the UK, US, Japanese and Korean tariffs in a general rural population in China.
      Methods: From November 2015 to September 2016, 12,085 permanent residents aged 45-69 from 257 villages randomly selected from Hua County, Henan Province, China, were interviewed using EQ-5D-3L, and a one-on-one questionnaire investigation was used to collect data on factors associated with HRQOL. The health utility scores were calculated using the UK, US, Japanese, Korean and Chinese (city) tariffs. The agreement, known-groups validity and sensitivity of these five tariffs were evaluated. Transition scores for pairs of observed EQ-5D-3L health states were calculated and compared.
      Results: The Korean tariff yielded the highest mean health utility score (0.963), followed by the Chinese (city) (0.948), US (0.943), UK (0.930) and Japanese (0.921) tariffs, but the differences in the scores of any two tariffs did not exceed the MCID. The Chinese (city) tariff showed higher ICC values (ICCs> 0.89, 95% CI:0.755-0.964) and narrower limits of agreement (0.099-0.167) than the Korean tariff [(ICCs> 0.71, 95% CI:0.451-0.955); (0.146-0.253)]. The Chinese (city) tariff had a higher relative efficiency and effect size statistics in 10 out of 11 variables as compared to the UK, US and Japanese tariffs. The Chinese (city) tariff (0.215) was associated with moderate mean absolute transition scores compared with the UK (0.342), US (0.230), Japanese (0.149) and Korean (0.189) tariffs for 1485 observed pairs of the EQ-5D-3L health states.
      Conclusions: Health utility scores derived from the five tariffs differed. The Chinese (city) tariff was the most suitable of these tariffs and was without obvious weakness. We recommend adopting the Chinese (city) tariff when applying EQ-5D-3L to assess quality of life among the elderly in China's agricultural region with socio-economic status similar to Hua County. Results of this study had provided a crucial basis for health surveys, health promotion projects, health intervention trials, and health economic evaluation taking HRQOL as a target in rural areas of China.
    • References:
      Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10. (PMID: 2868172)
      Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 Jun 23;11:1049-1056. (PMID: 28706443)
      Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1187-93. (PMID: 19659703)
      Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):203-20. (PMID: 15725977)
      Qual Life Res. 2012 Feb;21(1):155-60. (PMID: 21505881)
      Ann Intern Med. 1993 Apr 15;118(8):622-9. (PMID: 8452328)
      Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5 Suppl 1):S60-4. (PMID: 21839901)
      Value Health. 2014 Jul;17(5):597-604. (PMID: 25128053)
      PLoS One. 2016 Oct 6;11(10):e0164334. (PMID: 27711169)
      Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Sep 15;13:145. (PMID: 26374709)
      Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1523-32. (PMID: 16110932)
      Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Aug;96(34):e7840. (PMID: 28834893)
      Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Sep 23;6:71. (PMID: 18811935)
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Feb 23;14(3):. (PMID: 28241507)
      Chin J Cancer Res. 2018 Apr;30(2):240-253. (PMID: 29861609)
      Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8. (PMID: 18839484)
      Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):141-54. (PMID: 8733106)
      Health Econ. 2002 Jun;11(4):341-53. (PMID: 12007165)
      Gut. 2019 Feb;68(2):198-206. (PMID: 29306867)
      Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108. (PMID: 9366889)
      Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9. (PMID: 19565683)
    • Grant Information:
      201202014 Charity Project of National Ministry of Health; 81473033, 81773501 Natural Science Foundation of China; 2016YFC0901404 national key R&D program of China; XXZ0204 Digestive Medical Coordinated Development Center of Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals; 2017-4 Science Foundation of Peking University Cancer Hospital; 2017-10 Open Project funded by Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research, Ministry of Education/Beijing
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: EQ-5D-3L; Health utility scores; Rural China; Tariffs
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20200715 Date Completed: 20201102 Latest Revision: 20221207
    • Publication Date:
      20231215
    • Accession Number:
      PMC7359608
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12955-020-01476-z
    • Accession Number:
      32660494