Suppr超能文献

健康偏好是否与EQ-5D标签的排序相矛盾?

Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?

作者信息

Craig Benjamin M, Pickard A Simon, Rand-Hendriksen Kim

机构信息

Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC-CANCONT, Tampa, FL, 33612-9416, USA,

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1759-65. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0897-z. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to test whether the ordering of item labels in EQ-5D instruments disagrees with the preferences of US adults.

METHODS

A preference inversion occurs when "worse" health along a scale or score is preferred. As a sub-study of the 2013 United States Measurement and Valuation of Health Study, we tested for 33 EQ-5D preference inversions using paired comparisons with unique samples of 50 or more US adults, aged 18 or older. Specifically, we tested whether health preferences contradicted ordering of EQ-5D labels.

RESULTS

The EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y item labels had no significant preference inversions. The EQ-5D-5L version had preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5. For example, 30 out of 59 respondents (51 %) preferred being "extremely" over "severely anxious or depressed," contrary to the ordering of labels for that item.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference inversions between Levels 4 and 5 on the EQ-5D-5L were tested and confirmed; therefore, valuation studies may find that Levels 4 and 5 have the same value. To mitigate such inversions, labels could be revised or a 4-level version could be considered.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在测试EQ-5D量表中项目标签的排序是否与美国成年人的偏好不一致。

方法

当在一个量表或分数上“更差”的健康状况被偏好时,就会出现偏好反转。作为2013年美国健康测量与评估研究的一项子研究,我们使用50名或更多18岁及以上美国成年人的独特样本进行配对比较,测试了33次EQ-5D偏好反转。具体而言,我们测试了健康偏好是否与EQ-5D标签的排序相矛盾。

结果

EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-Y项目标签没有显著的偏好反转。EQ-5D-5L版本在第4级和第5级之间存在偏好反转。例如,59名受访者中有30名(51%)更喜欢“极度”而不是“严重焦虑或抑郁”,这与该项目标签的排序相反。

结论

对EQ-5D-5L第4级和第5级之间的偏好反转进行了测试并得到证实;因此,估值研究可能会发现第4级和第5级具有相同的价值。为了减轻这种反转,可以修改标签或考虑采用4级版本。

相似文献

1
Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1759-65. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0897-z. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
2
Further evidence on EQ-5D-5L preference inversion: a Brazil/U.S. collaboration.
Qual Life Res. 2017 Sep;26(9):2489-2496. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1591-8. Epub 2017 May 8.
3
Parallel Valuation: A Direct Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Societal Value Sets.
Med Decis Making. 2018 Nov;38(8):968-982. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18802797.
4
Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis.
Arch Dermatol Res. 2017 Jul;309(5):357-370. doi: 10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2. Epub 2017 May 20.
5
Responsiveness of the anxiety/depression dimension of the 3- and 5-level versions of the EQ-5D in assessing mental health.
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1625-1633. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1828-1. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
6
Choice Defines QALYs: A US Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L.
Med Care. 2018 Jun;56(6):529-536. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000912.
8
EQ-5D-Y-5L: developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories.
Qual Life Res. 2019 Jul;28(7):1951-1961. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02115-x. Epub 2019 Feb 9.
9
Comparison of Adult and Adolescent Preferences Toward EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States.
Value Health. 2021 Sep;24(9):1350-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.03.019. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
10

引用本文的文献

2
Scale and rate heterogeneity in the EQ-5D-5L valuation.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024 Jul 13;22(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12955-024-02271-w.
3
Different Frameworks, Similar Results? Head-to-Head Comparison of the Generic Preference-Based Health-Outcome Measures CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024 Mar;22(2):227-242. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00837-1. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
4
Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared with EQ-5D-3L in cancer patients in Iran.
Front Oncol. 2022 Dec 9;12:1052155. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1052155. eCollection 2022.
5
Estimating the Relationship Between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: Results from a UK Population Study.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 Feb;41(2):199-207. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01218-7. Epub 2022 Nov 30.
6
Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples.
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):187-196. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00541-z. Epub 2021 Jul 30.
8
Does Device or Connection Type Affect Health Preferences in Online Surveys?
Patient. 2019 Dec;12(6):639-650. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00380-z.
9
Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Health Values.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jun;36(6):715-725. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0.
10
Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states 'in context' using a discrete choice experiment.
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 May;19(4):595-605. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0905-7. Epub 2017 May 31.

本文引用的文献

1
Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):93-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.011. Epub 2013 Sep 24.
2
US valuation of the SF-6D.
Med Decis Making. 2013 Aug;33(6):793-803. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13482524. Epub 2013 Apr 29.
3
Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study.
Qual Life Res. 2013 Sep;22(7):1717-27. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. Epub 2012 Nov 25.
4
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L).
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
5
Toward a more universal approach in health valuation.
Health Econ. 2011 Jul;20(7):864-75. doi: 10.1002/hec.1650.
6
Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D.
Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):875-86. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y. Epub 2010 Apr 20.
7
Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study.
Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):887-97. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x. Epub 2010 Apr 17.
8
Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY.
Value Health. 2009 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S18-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00518.x.
10
The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.
J Health Econ. 2002 Mar;21(2):271-92. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8.

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