Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Estimating health utilities in patients with asthma and COPD: evidence on the performance of EQ-5D and SF-6D

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to understand systematic differences in utility values derived from the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in two respiratory populations with heterogeneous disease severity.

Methods

This study involved secondary analysis of data from two cross-sectional surveys of patients with asthma (N = 228; Hungary) and COPD (N = 176; Sweden). Disease severity was defined according to GINA and GOLD guidelines for asthma and COPD, respectively. EQ-5D and SF-6D scores and their distributional characteristics were compared across the two samples by disease severity level.

Results

Within each patient population, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D scores were similar for the overall group and for those with moderate disease. Mean scores varied for patients with mild and severe disease. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the asthma group by severity levels were 0.89 versus 0.80, 0.70 versus 0.73, 0.63 versus 0.64, and 0.51 versus 0.63, respectively. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the COPD group by severity levels were 0.85 versus 0.80, 0.73 versus 0.73, 0.74 versus 0.73, and 0.53 versus 0.62, respectively.

Conclusions

Results suggest the EQ-5D and SF-6D do not yield consistent utility values in patients with asthma and COPD due to differences in underlying valuation techniques and the EQ-5D’s limited response options relative to mild disease.

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
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

EQ-5D:

EuroQol-5D

GINA:

Global initiative for asthma

GOLD:

Global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

NHLBI:

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

OLIN:

Obstructive Lung Disease in Northern Sweden

QALYs:

Quality-adjusted life years

SF-6D:

Short Form-6D

SG:

Standard Gamble

TTO:

Time trade-off

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370. doi:10.3109/07853890109002090.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00609-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. The EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQoL: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 16, 199–208. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. WHO Strategy for prevention and control of Chronic Respiratory Diseases. www.who.int.

  6. Szende, A., Svensson, K., Stahl, E., Meszaros, A., & Berta, G. Y. (2004). Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. PharmacoEconomics, 22(8), 537–547. doi:10.2165/00019053-200422080-00005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Global initiative for asthma (GINA) guidelines. (1998). Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention NHLBI/WHO Workshop Report.

  8. Ståhl, E., Lindberg, A., Rönmark, E., Svensson, K., Jansson, S.-A., Andersson, F., et al. (2001). The level of health-related quality of life in patients with COPD and its dependence on age, gender, and disease severity. The European Respiratory Journal, 18(Suppl 33), 184s. doi:10.1183/09031936.01.00084401.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pauwels, R. A., Buist, A. S., Calverley, P. M., Jenkins, C. R., Hurd, S. S., & The GOLD Scientific Committee. (2001). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop summary. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 163(5), 1047–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (Eds.), (2007). The European VAS value set. In EQ–5D value sets. Inventory, comparative review and user guide (pp. 83–85). Dordrecht: Springer.

  11. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108. doi:10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). A Review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics, 17(2), 151. doi:10.2165/00019053-200017020-00004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping VAS scores onto TTO and SG utilities. Social Science and Medicine, 44, 1289–1297. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00271-7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121. doi:10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 311–322. doi:10.1023/A:1008894502042.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J., III (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00108.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Konig, H. H., Ulshofer, A., Gregor, M., von Tirpitz, C., Reinshagen, M., Adler, G., et al. (2002). Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 14(11), 1205–1215. doi:10.1097/00042737-200211000-00008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu, A. W., Jacobson, K. L., Frick, K. D., Clark, R., Revicki, D. A., Freedberg, K. A., et al. (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the EuroQol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 273–282. doi:10.1023/A:1015240103565.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Conner-Spady, B., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2003). Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care, 41(7), 791–801. doi:10.1097/00005650-200307000-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., et al. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42(11), 1125–1131. doi:10.1097/00005650-200411000-00012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sach, T. H., Barton, G. R., Doherty, M., Muir, K. R., Jenkinson, C., & Avery, A. J. (2007). The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life: Comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D. International Journal of Obesity (London), 31(1), 189–196. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803365.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barton, G. R., Sach, T. H., Doherty, M., Avery, A.J., Jenkinson, C., & Muir K. R. (2007). An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D (index), SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. The European Journal of Health Economics Jun 29 [Epub ahead of print].

  23. Franks, P., Hanmer, J., & Fryback, D. G. (2006). Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Medical Care, 44(5), 478–485. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000207464.61661.05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boonen, A., van der Heijde, D., Landewe, R., van Tubergen, A., Mielants, H., Dougados, M., et al. (2007). How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 66(6), 771–777. doi:10.1136/ard.2006.060384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wee, H. L., Machin, D., Loke, W. C., Li, S. C., Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., et al. (2007). Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value in Health, 10(4), 256–265. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00174.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15(11), 1229–1236. doi:10.1002/hec.1125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? The European Journal of Health Economics, 6(3), 253–260. doi:10.1007/s10198-005-0299-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2006). Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 334–346. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2008). How consistent are utility values? Quality of Life Research, 17(7), 1031–1042. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9368-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., & Cairns, J. (2008). SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. The European Journal of Health Economics. (Epub ahead of print).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Szende.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szende, A., Leidy, N.K., Ståhl, E. et al. Estimating health utilities in patients with asthma and COPD: evidence on the performance of EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 18, 267–272 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9429-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9429-z

Keywords

Navigation