Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form 6-dimension (SF-6D) instruments in assessing patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study, ESRD patients attending a tertiary hospital were interviewed using a battery of questionnaires including the EQ-5D-5L, the kidney disease quality of life instrument (KDQOL-36), and questions assessing dialysis history and socio-demographic characteristics. We reviewed patients’ medical records for their clinical information. We assessed the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores and compared their ability to distinguish between patients differing in health status and the magnitude of between-group difference they quantified.

Results

One hundred and fifty ESRD patients on dialysis (mean age, 60.1 years; female, 48.7 %) participated in the study. Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D demonstrated satisfactory known-groups validity; the EQ-5D-5L was more sensitive to differences in clinical outcomes and the SF-6D was more sensitive to differences in health outcomes measured by KDQOL scales. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the measures was 0.36. The differences in the EQ-5D-5L index score for patients in better and worse health status were greater than those measured by the SF-6D index score.

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D are valid instruments for assessing ESRD patients. However, the two preference-based measures cannot be used interchangeably and it appears that EQ-5D-5L would lead to more favorable cost-effectiveness results than SF-6D if they are used in economic evaluations of interventions for ESRD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Abbreviations

HRQOL:

Health-related quality of life

ESRD:

End-stage renal disease

QALY:

Quality-adjusted life year

HD:

Hemodialysis

PD:

Peritoneal dialysis

EQ-5D:

EuroQol group’s 5-dimension questionnaire

EQ-5D-5L:

5-Level EuroQol group’s 5-dimension questionnaire

EQ-5D-3L:

3-Level EuroQol group’s 5-dimension questionnaire

SF-6D:

Short Form 6-dimension questionnaire

KDQOL-36:

36-Item Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire

CCI:

Charlson comorbidity index

SF-12:

12-Item Short-Form health survey

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

RE:

Relative efficiency

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

ICER:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

References

  1. Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095–1108 (1997)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Conner-Spady, B., Suarez-Almazor, M.E.: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care 41(7), 791–801 (2003). doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000068537.83456.36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13(9), 873–884 (2004). doi:10.1002/hec.866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., Mompart, A., Medina, A., Pardo, Y., Alonso, J., Brazier, J., Ferrer, M.: Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual. Life Res. 19(6), 853–864 (2010). doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrou, S., Hockley, C.: An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 14(11), 1169–1189 (2005). doi:10.1002/hec.1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Luo, N., Wang, P., Fu, A.Z., Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Med. Care 50(7), 627–632 (2012). doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d7471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, Q.A.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision : results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3(2), 103–105 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee, A.J., Morgan, C.L., Conway, P., Currie, C.J.: Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 21(11), 1777–1783 (2005). doi:10.1185/030079905X65277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manns, B.J., Johnson, J.A., Taub, K., Mortis, G., Ghali, W.A., Donaldson, C.: Dialysis adequacy and health related quality of life in hemodialysis patients. ASAIO J. 48(5), 565–569 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gerard, K., Nicholson, T., Mullee, M., Mehta, R., Roderick, P.: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically Ill patient group. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3(2), 91–102 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajan, M., Lai, K.C., Tseng, C.L., Qian, S., Selim, A., Kazis, L., Pogach, L., Sinha, A.: Estimating utilities for chronic kidney disease, using SF-36 and SF-12-based measures: challenges in a population of veterans with diabetes. Qual. Life Res. 22(1), 53–64 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0139-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Janssen, M.F., Birnie, E., Bonsel, G.J.: Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual. Life Res. 17(3), 463–473 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Janssen, M.F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J.A., Bonsel, G.J.: Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11(2), 275–284 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Mak 26(4), 410–420 (2006). doi:10.1177/0272989X06290495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia, X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pickard, A.S., De Leon, M.C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S.: Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med. Care 45(3), 259–263 (2007). doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim, S.H., Kim, H.J., Lee, S.I., Jo, M.W.: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual. Life Res. 21(6), 1065–1073 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Agborsangaya, C.B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., Johnson, J.A.: Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12, 74 (2014). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-74

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Iorio, B., Cillo, N., Cirillo, M., De Santo, N.G.: Charlson Comorbidity Index is a predictor of outcomes in incident hemodialysis patients and correlates with phase angle and hospitalization. Int. J. Artif. Organs 27(4), 330–336 (2004)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rabin, R., de Charro, F.: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann. Med. 33(5), 337–343 (2001). doi:10.3109/07853890109002087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee, C.F., Nan, L., Ng, R., Wong, N.S., Yap, Y.S., Lo, S.K., Chia, W.K., Yee, A., Krishna, L., Wong, C., Goh, C., Cheung, Y.B.: Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Qual. Life Res. 22(7), 1745–1751 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wong, K.Y., How, H.C., Thumboo J., Shen, L., Tay, E.G., Luo, N.: Testing the equivalence of the label wording for EQ-5D-5L responses options across different languages in Singapore. Paper presented at the ISPOR 5th Asia-Pacific conference, Taipei International Convention Center, Taipei, Taiwan, 2–4 Sept 2012

  26. van Hout, B., Janssen, M.F., Feng, Y.S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., Pickard, A.S.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5), 708–715 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kalantar-Zadeh, K., Unruh, M.: Health related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 37(2), 367–378 (2005). doi:10.1007/s11255-004-0012-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang, F., Wang, V.W., Joshi, V.D., Lau, T.W., Luo, N.: Validation of the English version of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire (KDQOL-36) in haemodialysis patients in Singapore. Patient 6(2), 135–141 (2013). doi:10.1007/s40271-013-0015-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med. Care 42(9), 851–859 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wee, H.L., Cheung, Y.B., Fong, K.Y., Luo, N., Machin, D., Thumboo, J.: Are English- and Chinese-language versions of the SF-6D equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clin. Ther. 26(7), 1137–1148 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G.: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476), 307–310 (1986)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fayers, Peter M., M, D.: Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Luo, N., Johnson, J.A., Shaw, J.W., Feeny, D., Coons, S.J.: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Med. Care 43(11), 1078–1086 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Molsted, S., Prescott, L., Heaf, J., Eidemak, I.: Assessment and clinical aspects of health-related quality of life in dialysis patients and patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephron. Clin. Pract. 106(1), C24–C33 (2007). doi:10.1159/000101481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Day, N.A.: A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann. Med. 33(5), 358–370 (2001)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sorensen, J., Linde, L., Ostergaard, M., Hetland, M.L.: Quality-adjusted life expectancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis—comparison of index scores from EQ-5D, 15D, and SF-6D. Value Health 15(2), 334–339 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Obradovic, M., Lal, A., Liedgens, H.: Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, 110 (2013). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-110

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Barton, G.R., Sach, T.H., Avery, A.J., Doherty, M., Jenkinson, C., Muir, K.R.: Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff. Resour Alloc. 7, 12 (2009). doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-12

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Adams, R., Walsh, C., Veale, D., Bresnihan, B., FitzGerald, O., Barry, M.: Understanding the relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and disease activity in inflammatory arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 28(6), 477–487 (2010). doi:10.2165/11533010-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sach, T.H., Barton, G.R., Jenkinson, C., Doherty, M., Avery, A.J., Muir, K.R.: Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med. Care 47(8), 889–894 (2009). doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a39428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McDonough, C.M., Tosteson, A.N.: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 25(2), 93–106 (2007)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stavem, K., Froland, S.S., Hellum, K.B.: Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual. Life Res. 14(4), 971–980 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harrison, M.J., Davies, L.M., Bansback, N.J., McCoy, M.J., Verstappen, S.M., Watson, K., Symmons, D.P.: The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual. Life Res. 18(9), 1195–1205 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9539-2

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. EuroQolGroup. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National University Health System (NUHS) Cross Department Collaborative Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nan Luo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E. et al. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ 16, 1019–1026 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation