Literature DB >> 25260384

Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese.

P Wang1, M H Li2, G G Liu3, J Thumboo4, N Luo5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether health-state preferences differ among Chinese populations. This study compared the preference values for EQ-5D-5L health states between mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese.
METHODS: The preference values for ten EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited from general population samples of mainland Chinese and Singaporeans. In computer-assisted self-interviews, each participant completed five time trade-off (TTO) tasks to value five different EQ-5D-5L health states. The difference in TTO values between mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese was examined using random-effects linear regression and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 194 eligible mainland Chinese and 145 eligible Singaporean Chinese provided data for this study. All ten health states considered, the mean TTO value was 0.18 for Singaporean Chinese and 0.35 for mainland Chinese, with the unadjusted and adjusted difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] being -0.17 (-0.28, -0.07) and -0.16 (-0.27, -0.05). Singaporean Chinese had substantially lower TTO values than mainland Chinese for states with severe or extreme problems, with the adjusted difference being -0.30 (95% CI -0.42, -0.17). On the other hand, Singaporean Chinese and mainland Chinese had similar TTO values for states with mild or moderate problems, with the adjusted (95% CI) difference being 0.04 (-0.07, 0.15). Logistic regression analysis showed that Singaporean Chinese were more likely to rate health states with severe or extreme problems as worse than death compared to mainland Chinese.
CONCLUSIONS: Mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese have different preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states, supporting the development of local value sets for the EQ-5D-5L instrument for the two populations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EQ-5D-5L; Health-state preferences; Mainland Chinese; Singaporean Chinese; Time trade-off

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25260384     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0635-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  24 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan.

Authors:  Aki Tsuchiya; Shunya Ikeda; Naoki Ikegami; Shuzo Nishimura; Ikuro Sakai; Takashi Fukuda; Chisato Hamashima; Akinori Hisashige; Makoto Tamura
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation.

Authors:  Liv A Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Knut Stavem; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Valuing health states: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  P Dolan; C Gudex; P Kind; A Williams
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?

Authors:  Jeffrey A Johnson; Nan Luo; James W Shaw; Paul Kind; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 6.  International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis.

Authors:  Richard Norman; Paula Cronin; Rosalie Viney; Madeleine King; Deborah Street; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Whose preferences count?

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making.

Authors:  Bernard S Bloom
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.229

9.  How robust is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 utility function?

Authors:  Qinan Wang; William Furlong; David Feeny; George Torrance; Ronald Barr
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Matthijs M Versteegh; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07
View more
  6 in total

1.  Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference.

Authors:  Xuejing Jin; Gordon Guoen Liu; Nan Luo; Hongchao Li; Haijing Guan; Feng Xie
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China.

Authors:  Phil McEwan; James Baker-Knight; Björg Ásbjörnsdóttir; Yunni Yi; Aimee Fox; Robin Wyn
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-08

3.  Influence of culture, residential segregation and socioeconomic development on rural elderly health-related quality of life in Guangxi, China.

Authors:  Tai Zhang; Wuxiang Shi; Zhaoquan Huang; Dong Gao; Zhenyou Guo; Jianying Liu; Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Cultural Values: Can They Explain Differences in Health Utilities between Countries?

Authors:  Bram Roudijk; A Rogier T Donders; Peep F M Stalmeier
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Conceptual Framework for Optimised Proxy Value Set Selection Through Supra-National Value Set Development for the EQ-5D Instruments.

Authors:  Agata Łaszewska; Ayesha Sajjad; Jan Busschbach; Judit Simon; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 4.558

6.  A Computer-Assisted Personal Interview App in Research Electronic Data Capture for Administering Time Trade-off Surveys (REDCap): Development and Pretest.

Authors:  Mark Oremus; Anis Sharafoddini; Gian Paolo Morgano; Xuejing Jin; Feng Xie
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2018-01-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.