Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

15-04-2023

Normative profile of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores for the general Thai population

Auteur: Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To generate a normative profile for the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L index, and EQ-VAS scores of the general Thai population and to examine the associations between sociodemographic characteristics and their norm-based scores.

Methods

Data from 2019 general Thai samples were employed to estimate the norm-based scores elicited using the Thai EQ-5D-5L value set. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the norm-based scores stratified by gender and six age bands to obtain the normative profile for the general Thai population. Multivariable logistic and Tobit regression models were used to investigate the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L index, and EQ-VAS scores.

Results

The mean EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores were 0.931 and 82.3, respectively. Approximately 88.9% of the participants reported 19 out of 3125 (3%) possible health states. The odds of having problems with mobility was greatest for the sample aged ≥ 65 years and declined with decreasing age. Women, samples with advancing age, and those with a household income of ≤ 10,000 Baht/month and fair and poor health perceptions were more likely to report a lower EQ-5D-5L index. Furthermore, advanced age and fair and poor health perception were significantly associated with lower EQ-VAS scores.

Conclusion

The EQ-5D-5L population norms were established as the benchmark for both EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores for the general Thai population. This is expected to support the health service research and inform policymakers on the allocation of limited healthcare resources.

vorige artikel Updated normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Dutch population by age and sex: a cross-sectional panel research study

volgende artikel Health utilities and willingness to pay in adult patients with coeliac disease in Hungary

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRefPubMed

Devlin, N., Parkin, D., & Janssen, B. (2020). An introduction to EQ-5D instruments and their applications. In N. Devlin, D. Parkin, & B. Janssen (Eds.), Methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D Data (pp. 1–22). Springer.CrossRef

Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., et al. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8CrossRef

Nordlund, A., Ekberg, K., & Kristenson, M. (2005). EQ-5D in a general population survey—A description of the most commonly reported EQ-5D health states using the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(4), 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-11004-13062-11132CrossRefPubMed

Martí-Pastor, M., Pont, A., Ávila, M., Garin, O., Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., et al. (2018). Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics, 16(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-018-0170-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sassi, F. (2006). Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy and Planning, 21(5), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czl018CrossRefPubMed

Rawlins, M. D., & Culyer, A. J. (2004). National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ, 329(7459), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1329.7459.1224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Gold, M. R., Kamlet, M. S., & Russell, L. B. (1996). Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 276(15), 1253–1258.CrossRefPubMed

Rencz, F., Gulácsi, L., Drummond, M., Golicki, D., Prevolnik Rupel, V., Simon, J., et al. (2016). EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Quality of Life Research, 25(11), 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6CrossRefPubMed

10.

Devlin, N. J., & Brooks, R. (2017). EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: Past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-40018-40642-40275CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Kangwanrattanakul, K., & Parmontree, P. (2020). Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population. Quality of Life Research, 29(12), 3407–3417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02595-2CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jiang, R., Janssen, M. F. B., & Pickard, A. S. (2021). US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02650-yCrossRefPubMed

15.

Garratt, A. M., Hansen, T. M., Augestad, L. A., Rand, K., & Stavem, K. (2022). Norwegian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L: Results from a general population survey. Quality of Life Research, 31(2), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02938-7CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jensen, M. B., Jensen, C. E., Gudex, C., Pedersen, K. M., Sørensen, S. S., & Ehlers, L. H. (2021). Danish population health measured by the EQ-5D-5L. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948211058060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

The World Bank. (2021). GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$). Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD.

18.

National Statistical Office. (2021). Retrieved November 30, 2022, from http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/en/index.aspx. 2022.

19.

Tavorncharoensap, M., & Sakthong, P. (2019). Health utility. In S. Pannarunothai, S. Pilasant, W. Saengsri, & P. Kingkaew (Eds.), The guideline of health technology assessment in Thailand (pp. 77–94). Health Systems Research Institute.

20.

Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Sakthong, P., Sonsa-Ardjit, N., Sukarnjanaset, P., & Munpan, W. (2015). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 24(12), 3015–3022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-11015-11038-zCrossRefPubMed

22.

Pattanaphesaj, J., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ramos-Goni, J. M., Tongsiri, S., Ingsrisawang, L., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2018). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 18(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.14732018.11494574CrossRef

23.

Kangwanrattanakul, K., Gross, C. R., Sunantiwat, M., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2019). Exploration of a cultural-adaptation of the EQ-5D for Thai population: A “bolt-on” experiment. Quality of Life Research, 28(5), 1207–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2072-4CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sakthong, P. (2008). Measurement of clinical-effect: Utility. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 91(Suppl 2), S43-52.PubMed

25.

Thavorncharoensap, M. (2014). Measurement of utility. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 97(Suppl 5), S43-49.PubMed

26.

Devlin, N., Parkin, D., & Janssen, B. (2020). Analysis of EQ-5D values. In N. Devlin, D. Parkin, & B. Janssen (Eds.), Methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data (pp. 61–86). Springer.CrossRef

27.

Oemar, M., & Janssen, B. (2013). EQ-5D-5L User Guide Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQol group.

28.

Austin, P. C., Escobar, M., & Kopec, J. A. (2000). The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008938326604CrossRefPubMed

29.

Yang, Z., Busschbach, J., Liu, G., & Luo, N. (2018). EQ-5D-5L norms for the urban Chinese population in China. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1036-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A. M., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., Passchier, J., et al. (2018). Quality of life of the Indonesian general population: Test-retest reliability and population norms of the EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-BREF. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0197098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Emrani, Z., Akbari Sari, A., Zeraati, H., Olyaeemanesh, A., & Daroudi, R. (2020). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5 L: Population norms for the capital of Iran. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01365-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Nguyen, L. H., Tran, B. X., Le, Q. N. H., Tran, T. T., & Latkin, C. A. (2017). Quality of life profile of general Vietnamese population using EQ-5D-5L. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 199. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0771-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Wong, E. L., Cheung, A. W., Wong, A. Y., Xu, R. H., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2019). Normative profile of health-related quality of life for Hong Kong general population using preference-based instrument EQ-5D-5L. Value Health, 22(8), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.014CrossRefPubMed

35.

Grochtdreis, T., Dams, J., König, H. H., & Konnopka, A. (2019). 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. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(6), 933–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01054-1CrossRefPubMed

36.

Bailey, H., Janssen, M. F., La Foucade, A., & Kind, P. (2019). EQ-5D-5L population norms and health inequalities for Trinidad and Tobago. PLoS ONE, 14(4), e0214283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Poder, T. G., Carrier, N., & Kouakou, C. R. C. (2020). Quebec health-related quality-of-life population norms using the EQ-5D-5L: Decomposition by sociodemographic data and health problems. Value Health, 23(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.08.008CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Normative profile of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores for the general Thai population
Auteur: Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul
Publicatiedatum: 15-04-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03420-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2023

Measuring glaucoma quality of life in an Asian population using item banking: psychometric evaluation and computerized adaptive testing simulations

Health-related quality of life before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study

Health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors comparable with the general population

Psychometrics of patient-reported bother from side effects of treatment single-items in industry-sponsored oncology trials

Content validation of a daily patient-reported outcome measure for assessing symptoms in patients with Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth

Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in liver transplantation: a scoping review