Cargando…

Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies

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 popul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Zhihao, Purba, Fredrick Dermawan, Shafie, Asrul Akmal, Igarashi, Ataru, Wong, Eliza Lai-Yi, Lam, Hilton, Van Minh, Hoang, Lin, Hsiang-Wen, Ahn, Jeonghoon, Pattanaphesaj, Juntana, Jo, Min-Woo, Mai, Vu Quynh, Busschbach, Jan, Luo, Nan, Jiang, Jie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35181827
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x
Descripción
Sumario: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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x.