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

Yang Z 1 , Purba FD 2 , Shafie AA 3 , Igarashi A 4 , Wong EL 5 , Lam H 6 Show all authors , Van Minh H 7 , Lin HW 8 , Ahn J 9 , Pattanaphesaj J 10 , Jo MW 11 , Mai VQ 7 , Busschbach J 12 , Luo N 13 , Jiang J 14

Affiliations 

  • 1 Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
  • 2 Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia
  • 3 School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Malaysia
  • 4 Department of Drug Policy and Management, Faculty of Psychology, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
  • 5 Centre for Health Systems and Policy Research, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
  • 6 Institute of Health Policy and Development Studies, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines
  • 7 Center for Population Health Sciences, Haoni University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam
  • 8 School of Pharmacy and Graduate Institute, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
  • 9 Department of Health Convergence, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
  • 10 Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
  • 11 Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
  • 12 Department of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • 13 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  • 14 School of Pharmacy, Jian University, No. 601 Huangpudadaoxi, Guangzhou, China. jiangjie218@126.com
Qual Life Res, 2022 Feb 18.
PMID: 35181827 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x

Abstract

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications