[1]吴洁琪,曹林林,孙利华.EQ-5D和SF-6D测量同期健康效用值的比较研究[J].卫生经济研究,2020,(02):42-45.
　WU Jie-qi,CAO Lin-lin,SUN Li-hua.Comparative Study of EQ-5D and SF-6D in Measuring Health Utility Value over the Same Period[J].Journal Press of Health Economics Research,2020,(02):42-45.
点击复制

EQ-5D和SF-6D测量同期健康效用值的比较研究
分享到：

卫生经济研究[ISSN:1004-7778/CN:33-1056/F]

卷:
期数:
2020年02期
页码:
42-45
栏目:
卫生技术评估
出版日期:
2020-02-11

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparative Study of EQ-5D and SF-6D in Measuring Health Utility Value over the Same Period
作者:
吴洁琪1; 曹林林1; 孙利华1
1.沈阳药科大学工商管理学院，辽宁 沈阳 110016
Author(s):
WU Jie-qi; CAO Lin-lin; SUN Li-hua
First-author's address：School of Business Administration，Shenyang Pharmaceutical University，Shenyang Liaoning 110016，China
关键词:
健康效用值; EQ-5D; SF-6D
Keywords:
health utility value; EQ-5D; SF-6D
分类号:
R195
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的：比较EQ-5D和SF-6D两个量表的适用性，为药物经济学评价过程中效用值测量工具的选择提供参考。方法：基于已有文献，从效用均值的分布、差异、可交换性及适用性、敏感性分析四个方面，对两个量表进行比较。结果： EQ-5D的效用均值略呈左偏分布，SF-6D较符合正态分布；两个量表在不同分段的效用均值存在差异，一致性较差。结论：两个量表不具有可互换性，在应用过程中应充分考虑两者差异，根据疾病特点选择合适的量表，SF-6D多适用于进程缓慢的疾病，EQ-5D多适用于测量较差的健康状态。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the applicability of EQ-5D and SF-6D scales，and to provide a reference for the selection of utility value measurement tools in the process of pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Methods Based on the existing literature，the two scales were compared from the four aspects of the distribution，difference，exchangeability and applicability，and sensitivity analysis of the utility mean. Results The utility mean of EQ-5D showed a slightly leftward distribution，and SF-6D conformed to the normal distribution. The utility mean of the two scales in different segments was different，and the consistency was poor. Conclusion The two scales are not interchangeable. In the application process，the differences between the two should be fully considered. We should select the appropriate scale according to the characteristics of the disease. SF-6D is mostly suitable for slow-moving diseases，and EQ-5D is mostly suitable for measuring poor health.

参考文献/References:

[1] Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A.A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation[J]. Health Technol Assess,1999，3(9):1-164.
[2] McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making[J]. Pharmacoeconomics,2007，25(2):93-106.
[3] Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play[J]. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands),1996, 37 (1): 53 -72.
[4] Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Developmentand preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) [J]. Quality of life research, 2011,20(10): 1727-1736.
[5] Brazier John, Roberts Jennifer, Tsuchiya Aki, et al. A comparison of the EQ- 5D and SF- 6D across seven patient groups[J]. Health economics, 2004, 13 (9): 873 - 884.
[6] Seon Ha Kim.Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea[J]. Quality of Life Research,2012, 21 (6): 1065 - 1073.
[7] Luciana Scalone.Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D-3L with the new version EQ-5D-5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases[J]. Quality of Life Research,2013, 22 (7): 1707 - 1716.
[8] Brazier John, Roberts Jennifer, Deverill Mark.The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF- 36 [J]. Journal of health economics,2002, 21(2):271 -292.
[9] WARE J E, KOSINSKI M, KELLER S D. A 12-item shortform health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity[J]. Medical care, 1996,34(3):220.
[10] 余红梅,罗艳虹,萨建.组内相关系数及其软件实现[J].中国卫生统计,2011, 28(5):497-500.
[11] Takeru, S., et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D[J]. Qual Life Res, 2016（25）.
[12] Mulhern, B., et al.Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D[J]. Br J Psychiatry, 2014，205(3): 236-243.
[13] Kontodimopoulos, N., et al.The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure[J]. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2011，12(4).
[14] Hui Jin.Comparison between EQ- 5 D and SF- 6 D Utility in Rural Residents of Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Plos One, 2012 ,7 (7).

相似文献/References:

[1]朱莉娜,王建华,李思萌,等.慢性肾脏病患者健康效用评估：四种量表的比较与影响因素分析[J].卫生经济研究,2024,41(12):50.
　ZHU Lina,WANG Jianhua,LI Simeng,et al.Assessment of Health Utility in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Comparison of Four Scales and Analysis of Influencing Factors[J].Journal Press of Health Economics Research,2024,41(02):50.

更新日期/Last Update: 2020-02-11