Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 707-719

  Shiroiwa, Takeru ^a   Fukuda, Takashi ^a   Ikeda, Shunya ^b   Igarashi, Ataru ^c   Noto, Shinichi ^d   Saito, Shinya ^e   Shimozuma, Kojiro ^f  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

^b INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^d NIIGATA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Japan)

^e OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^f RITSUMEIKAN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health related quality of life; Japan; Population norms; QALY; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; JAPAN; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; SF-6D; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; JAPAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84958759846     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy,37(1), 53–72.
2. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care,35(11), 1095–1108.
3. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics,7(6), 490–502.
4. Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics,7(6), 503–520.
5. Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care,34(7), 702–722.
6. Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,51(11), 1115–1128.
7. 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.
8. Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics,26(3), 597–612. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.09.002.
9. Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics,11(4), 341–353. doi:10.1002/hec.673.
10. Ikeda, S., Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, I., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2015). Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health,64(1), 47–55. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3. (in Japanese).
11. Brazier, J. E., Fukuhara, S., Roberts, J., Kharroubi, S., Yamamoto, Y., Ikeda, S., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,62(12), 1323–1331. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.022.
12. Szende, A., Janssen, B., & Cabases, J. (Eds.). (2014). Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Netherlands: Dordrecht Springer.
13. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ,316(7133), 736–741.
14. Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care,43(11), 1078–1086.
15. Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care,45(12), 1162–1170. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31814848f1.
16. Konig, H. H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six european countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care,47(2), 255–261. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318184759e.
17. Konig, H. H., Heider, D., Lehnert, T., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., et al. (2010). Health status of the advanced elderly in six European countries: Results from a representative survey using EQ-5D and SF-12. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,8, 143. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-143.
18. Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., et al. (2010). Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Quality of Life Research,19(6), 853–864. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z.
19. Perneger, T. V., Combescure, C., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2010). General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health,13(5), 631–635. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00727.x.
20. Saarni, S. I., Harkanen, T., Sintonen, H., Suvisaari, J., Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., et al. (2006). The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research,15(8), 1403–1414. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-0020-1.
21. Sorensen, J., Davidsen, M., Gudex, C., Pedersen, K. M., & Bronnum-Hansen, H. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,37(5), 467–474. doi:10.1177/1403494809105286.
22. Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., & Oppe, M. (2014). EQ-5D Portuguese population norms. Quality of Life Research,23(2), 425–430. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0488-4.
23. Golicki, D., & Niewada, M. (2015). General population reference values for 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in Poland. Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej,125(1–2), 18–26.
24. 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.
25. Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C., Whitty, J. A., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research,23(8), 2375–2381. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x.
26. Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the national health services survey 2008. Quality of Life Research,20(3), 309–320. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x.
27. Yu, S. T., Chang, H. Y., Yao, K. P., Lin, Y. H., & Hurng, B. S. (2015). Validity of EQ-5D in general population of Taiwan: Results of the 2009 national health interview and drug abuse survey of Taiwan. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0978-7.
28. Abdin, E., Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J. A., Luo, N., & Chong, S. A. (2013). Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: Population norms for the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research,22(10), 2983–2991. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0405-x.
29. Abdin, E., Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J. A., Luo, N., & Chong, S. A. (2014). Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0859-5.
30. Kularatna, S., Whitty, J. A., Johnson, N. W., Jayasinghe, R., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). EQ-5D-3L derived population norms for health related quality of life in Sri Lanka. PLoS One,9(11), e108434. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108434.
31. Menezes, R. M., Andrade, M. V., Noronha, K. V., & Kind, P. (2015). EQ-5D-3L as a health measure of Brazilian adult population. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0994-7.
32. van den Berg, B. (2012). Sf-6d population norms. Health Economics,21(12), 1508–1512. doi:10.1002/hec.1823.
33. Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,37(1), 17–23. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12005.
34. Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2015). SF-6D Portuguese population norms. The European Journal of Health Economics,16(3), 235–241. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0568-6.
35. Ciconelli, R. M., Ferraz, M. B., Kowalski, S., Pinheiro, G. R. C., & Sato, E. I. (2015). Brazilian urban population norms derived from the health-related quality of life SF-6D. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0991-x.
36. Fukuda, T., Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Igarashi, I., Akazawa, M., Ishida, H., et al. (2013). Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health,62(6), 625–640. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3. (in Japanese).
37. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., 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. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
38. Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care,42(9), 851–859.
39. Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care,30(6), 473–483.
40. Fukuhara, S., Bito, S., Green, J., Hsiao, A., & Kurokawa, K. (1998). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,51(11), 1037–1044.
41. Fukuhara, S., Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., Wada, S., & Gandek, B. (1998). Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,51(11), 1045–1053.
42. Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,53(1), 46–50.
43. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet,1(8476), 307–310.
44. Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., et al. (2004). A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,57(9), 898–910. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012.
45. Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research,22(7), 1717–1727. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
46. Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research,18(1), 87–97. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8.
47. 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.
48. Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2008). How consistent are health utility values? Quality of Life Research,17(7), 1031–1042. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9368-8.
49. Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health,14(4), 531–538. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002.
50. De Smedt, D., Clays, E., Annemans, L., & De Bacquer, D. (2014). EQ-5D versus SF-12 in coronary patients: Are they interchangeable? Value Health,17(1), 84–89. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.010.
51. 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.
52. Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K. S., & Luo, N. (2014). Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The European Journal of Health Economics,. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7.
53. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research,14(6), 1523–1532.
54. Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,5, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.
55. Le, Q. A., Doctor, J. N., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2013). Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Results from a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,11, 59. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-59.