Xuejing Jin1,2, Gordon Guoen Liu2,3, Nan Luo4, Hongchao Li5, Haijing Guan2, Feng Xie6. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. China Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, China. 3. National School of Development, Peking University, Beijing, China. 4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 5. School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 6. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. fengxie@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of demographic and cultural factors on health preferences among Chinese general population. METHODS: The Chinese EQ-5D-5L valuation study was conducted between December 2012 and January 2013. A total of 1296 participants were recruited from the general public at Beijing, Chengdu, Guiyang, Nanjing, and Shenyang. Each participant was interviewed to measure preferences for ten EQ-5D-5L health states using composite time trade-off and seven pairs of states using discrete choice experiment (data were not included in this study). At the end of the interview, each participant was also asked to provide their demographic information and answers to two questions about their attitudes towards whether bad living is better than good death (LBD) and whether they believe in an afterlife. Generalized linear model and random effects logistic models were used to examine the impact of demographic and cultural factors on health preferences. RESULTS: Participants who had serious illness experience received college or higher education, or agree with LBD were more likely to value health states positively and have a narrower score range. Participants at Beijing were more likely to be non-traders, value health states positively, less likely to reach the lowest possible score, and have narrower score range compared with all other four cities after controlling for all other demographic and culture factors. CONCLUSIONS: Health state preference is significantly affected by factors beyond demographics. These factors should be considered in achieving a representative sample in valuation studies in China.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of demographic and cultural factors on health preferences among Chinese general population. METHODS: The Chinese EQ-5D-5L valuation study was conducted between December 2012 and January 2013. A total of 1296 participants were recruited from the general public at Beijing, Chengdu, Guiyang, Nanjing, and Shenyang. Each participant was interviewed to measure preferences for ten EQ-5D-5L health states using composite time trade-off and seven pairs of states using discrete choice experiment (data were not included in this study). At the end of the interview, each participant was also asked to provide their demographic information and answers to two questions about their attitudes towards whether bad living is better than good death (LBD) and whether they believe in an afterlife. Generalized linear model and random effects logistic models were used to examine the impact of demographic and cultural factors on health preferences. RESULTS:Participants who had serious illness experience received college or higher education, or agree with LBD were more likely to value health states positively and have a narrower score range. Participants at Beijing were more likely to be non-traders, value health states positively, less likely to reach the lowest possible score, and have narrower score range compared with all other four cities after controlling for all other demographic and culture factors. CONCLUSIONS: Health state preference is significantly affected by factors beyond demographics. These factors should be considered in achieving a representative sample in valuation studies in China.
Entities:
Keywords:
Composite time trade-off; Cultural; Demographic; EQ-5D; Health state preference
Authors: James W Shaw; Jeffrey A Johnson; Shijie Chen; Joel R Levin; Stephen Joel Coons Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: K L Kilbridge; J C Weeks; A J Sober; F G Haluska; C L Slingluff; M B Atkins; D E Sock; J M Kirkwood; R F Nease Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Alan S Pickard; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nan Luo; Minghui Li; Gordon G Liu; Andrew Lloyd; Frank de Charro; Michael Herdman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Paul F M Krabbe; Nancy J Devlin; Elly A Stolk; Koonal K Shah; Mark Oppe; Ben van Hout; Elise H Quik; A Simon Pickard; Feng Xie Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Shuang Hao; Emelie Heintz; Gert Helgesson; Sophie Langenskiöld; Jiaying Chen; Kristina Burström Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gordon G Liu; Haijing Guan; Xuejing Jin; Han Zhang; Samantha A Vortherms; Hongyan Wu Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Aureliano Paolo Finch; Eva Gamper; Richard Norman; Rosalie Viney; Bernhard Holzner; Madeleine King; Georg Kemmler Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 4.981