Department of Economics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Jun;14(3):539-50. doi: 10.1007/s10198-012-0402-y. Epub 2012 Jun 8.
This paper provides an analysis on the use of 15D and EQ-5D to measure health related quality of life. Measures like these are often used interchangeably in cost-effectiveness studies. However, it is unclear whether they measure the same level of health in the same patients. The empirical performance of the two multi-attribute utility instruments is tested in terms of feasibility, utility score, linear relationship and agreement by using a novel Norwegian data set. The paper also includes an analysis of how the instruments rank individuals in terms of health status, and their discriminatory power are tested. The results show that EQ-5D and 15D should not be used interchangeably in economic evaluations. EQ-5D is likely to give a more favourable cost utility ratio than 15D. The utility scores generated from the two instruments differ significantly different from each other, even though they correlate well. The instruments also rank individuals in terms of health status differently.
本文分析了使用 15D 和 EQ-5D 来测量健康相关生活质量。这些测量方法在成本效益研究中经常互换使用。然而，尚不清楚它们是否在相同的患者中测量相同的健康水平。使用新颖的挪威数据集，从可行性、效用得分、线性关系和一致性等方面测试了这两种多属性效用工具的经验性能。本文还分析了这两种工具如何根据健康状况对个体进行排名，并测试其区分能力。结果表明，在经济评估中，15D 和 EQ-5D 不应互换使用。EQ-5D 比 15D 更有可能产生有利的成本效用比。尽管这两种工具相关性良好，但它们生成的效用得分却存在显著差异。这两种工具在对个体的健康状况进行排名时也存在差异。
