Suppr超能文献

比较三种欧洲国家用 EQ-5D 衡量的人口健康状况的不同评估方法。

Comparison of different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EQ-5D in three European countries.

机构信息

Health Economics Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

Value Health. 2009 Jul-Aug;12(5):750-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00509.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare different valuation methods for population health status measured by the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) in three European countries.

METHODS

A representative survey of the noninstitutionalized population aged 18 and above was conducted in three European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, and Spain). A total of 11,932 respondents were interviewed using the EQ-5D self-classifier. Health state values based on community preferences (EQ-5D index) were calculated for each country using four different value sets: national value sets based on the time trade-off (TTO) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), the UK TTO-based value set and the European VAS-based value set. Linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the factors associated with different EQ-5D index scores depending on the value set used. Loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated for each country using the four value sets by multiplying the age and gender-specific values with the respective population size.

RESULTS

In all countries, means of all EQ-5D index scores were higher for men than women, and decreased with age. Index scores calculated using the national value set based on TTO were higher than those calculated using the UK TTO-based value set and, also, slightly higher than those calculated using the European VAS-based value set or the national value set based on the VAS. The mean loss of QALYs estimated for Germany per inhabitant varied between 0.062 (national value set based on TTO) and 0.094 (European VAS-based value set). In The Netherlands, the mean loss of QALYs per inhabitant ranged from 0.090 (national value set based on TTO) to 0.125 (national value set based on VAS). In Spain, the mean loss of QALYs per inhabitant ranged between 0.072 (national value set based on TTO) and 0.085 (European VAS-based value set).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the differences among countries and valuations were rather small; nevertheless, some important variations should be taken into account while applying different valuation methods to the EQ-5D descriptive system. The associations between sociodemographic variables and health state scores remained the same across countries regardless of which value sets were used. Using different valuation methods lead to different QALY losses. To overcome this problem in international surveys aimed to compare health state scores or QALYs, it is advisable to use a single valuation method, making these scores comparable.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在分析和比较三个欧洲国家使用 EuroQol-5D(EQ-5D)测量的人口健康状况的不同估值方法。

方法

在三个欧洲国家(德国、荷兰和西班牙)进行了一项针对非机构化人口 18 岁及以上的代表性调查。共有 11932 名受访者使用 EQ-5D 自我分类器进行了访谈。使用四种不同的价值集(基于时间权衡(TTO)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)的国家价值集、基于英国 TTO 的价值集和基于欧洲 VAS 的价值集)为每个国家计算了基于社区偏好的健康状况值(EQ-5D 指数)。使用线性回归分析评估了根据使用的价值集,与不同 EQ-5D 指数得分相关的因素。使用四种价值集通过将年龄和性别特定值乘以各自的人口规模,计算了每个国家的质量调整生命年(QALY)损失。

结果

在所有国家,男性的 EQ-5D 指数得分均高于女性,且随年龄增长而降低。使用基于 TTO 的国家价值集计算的指数得分高于使用基于英国 TTO 的价值集计算的指数得分,也略高于使用基于欧洲 VAS 的价值集或基于 VAS 的国家价值集计算的指数得分。估计德国每个居民的 QALY 损失平均值在 0.062(基于 TTO 的国家价值集)和 0.094(基于欧洲 VAS 的价值集)之间变化。在荷兰,每个居民的 QALY 损失平均值在 0.090(基于 TTO 的国家价值集)至 0.125(基于 VAS 的国家价值集)之间变化。在西班牙,每个居民的 QALY 损失平均值在 0.072(基于 TTO 的国家价值集)至 0.085(基于欧洲 VAS 的价值集)之间变化。

结论

总体而言,国家之间和估值之间的差异相当小;然而,在将不同的估值方法应用于 EQ-5D 描述性系统时,应考虑到一些重要的差异。无论使用哪种价值集,社会人口统计学变量与健康状况得分之间的关联在各国保持不变。使用不同的估值方法会导致不同的 QALY 损失。为了克服旨在比较健康状况得分或 QALY 的国际调查中的这一问题,建议使用单一的估值方法,使这些得分具有可比性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验