TY - JOUR
T1 - Do health preferences differ among Asian populations?
T2 - A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies
AU - Yang, Zhihao
AU - Purba, Fredrick Dermawan
AU - Shafie, Asrul Akmal
AU - Igarashi, Ataru
AU - Wong, Eliza Lai Yi
AU - Lam, Hilton
AU - Van Minh, Hoang
AU - Lin, Hsiang Wen
AU - Ahn, Jeonghoon
AU - Pattanaphesaj, Juntana
AU - Jo, Min Woo
AU - Mai, Vu Quynh
AU - Busschbach, Jan
AU - Luo, Nan
AU - Jiang, Jie
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the EuroQol Research Foundation (EQ Project 20180230). The views expressed by the authors in the manuscript do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group.
Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Introduction: Many countries have established their own EQ-5D value sets proceeding on the basis that health preferences differ among countries/populations. So far, published studies focused on comparing value set using TTO data. This study aims to compare the health preferences among 11 Asian populations using the DCE data collected in their EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Methods: In the EQ-VT protocol, 196 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were valued by a general population sample using DCE method for all studies. DCE data were obtained from the study PI. To understand how the health preferences are different/similar with each other, the following analyses were done: (1) the statistical difference between the coefficients; (2) the relative importance of the five EQ-5D dimensions; (3) the relative importance of the response levels. Results: The number of statistically differed coefficients between two studies ranged from 2 to 16 (mean: 9.3), out of 20 main effects coefficients. For the relative importance, there is not a universal preference pattern that fits all studies, but with some common characteristics, e.g. mobility is considered the most important; the relative importance of levels are approximately 20% for level 2, 30% for level 3, 70% for level 4 for all studies. Discussion: Following a standardized study protocol, there are still considerable differences in the modeling and relative importance results in the EQ-5D-5L DCE data among 11 Asian studies. These findings advocate the use of local value set for calculating health state utility.
AB - Introduction: Many countries have established their own EQ-5D value sets proceeding on the basis that health preferences differ among countries/populations. So far, published studies focused on comparing value set using TTO data. This study aims to compare the health preferences among 11 Asian populations using the DCE data collected in their EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Methods: In the EQ-VT protocol, 196 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were valued by a general population sample using DCE method for all studies. DCE data were obtained from the study PI. To understand how the health preferences are different/similar with each other, the following analyses were done: (1) the statistical difference between the coefficients; (2) the relative importance of the five EQ-5D dimensions; (3) the relative importance of the response levels. Results: The number of statistically differed coefficients between two studies ranged from 2 to 16 (mean: 9.3), out of 20 main effects coefficients. For the relative importance, there is not a universal preference pattern that fits all studies, but with some common characteristics, e.g. mobility is considered the most important; the relative importance of levels are approximately 20% for level 2, 30% for level 3, 70% for level 4 for all studies. Discussion: Following a standardized study protocol, there are still considerable differences in the modeling and relative importance results in the EQ-5D-5L DCE data among 11 Asian studies. These findings advocate the use of local value set for calculating health state utility.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124769956&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x
DO - 10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124769956
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 31
SP - 2175
EP - 2187
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 7
ER -