| Literature DB >> 30586400 |
Hsiang-Wen Lin1,2,3, Chia-Ing Li4, Fang-Ju Lin5,6,7, Jen-Yu Chang6, Churn-Shiouh Gau8, Nan Luo9, A Simon Pickard3,4,10, Juan M Ramos Goñi11, Chao-Hsiun Tang12, Chien-Ning Hsu13,14.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To date, a value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on the health state preferences of the general Taiwanese population has not been available. This study aimed to develop a Taiwanese value set for EQ-5D-5L to facilitate health technology assessment for medical products and services.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30586400 PMCID: PMC6306233 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of respondents compared to Taiwan adult general population.
| Characteristics | Full sample | Subgroup sample without flagged QC reports | Taiwan adult general population | Differences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 1000 | 970 | 18,963,159 | NA |
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 505(50.5%) | 489(50.4%) | 9,627,275(50.8%) | -0.30% |
| Male | 495(49.5%) | 481(49.6%) | 9,335,884(49.2%) | 0.30% |
| Age | ||||
| 20~29 | 173(17.3%) | 167(17.2%) | 3,375,442(17.8%) | -0.50% |
| 30~39 | 208(20.8%) | 200(20.7%) | 4,058,116(21.4%) | -0.60% |
| 40~49 | 190(19.0%) | 187(19.3%) | 3,621,963(19.1%) | -0.10% |
| 50~59 | 193(19.3%) | 187(19.3%) | 3,603,001(19.0%) | 0.30% |
| >60 | 236(23.6%) | 229(23.6%) | 4,304,637(22.7%) | -0.90% |
| Living area | ||||
| North &East | 500(50.0%) | 484(49.9%) | 9,614,322(50.7%) | -0.70% |
| Central | 225(22.5%) | 218(22.5%) | 4,077,079(21.5%) | 1.00% |
| South | 275(27.5%) | 268(27.6%) | 5,271,758(27.8%) | -0.30% |
| Education | ||||
| Primary sch. | 130(13%) | 125(12.9%) | 8,362,753(44.1%) | -31.10% |
| High sch. | 277(27.7%) | 268(27.6%) | 5,461,390(28.8%) | -1.10% |
| Higher education | 593(59.3%) | 577(59.5%) | 5,139,016(27.1%) | 32.20% |
| Employment | ||||
| Full Paid | 694(69.4%) | 676(69.7%) | NA | NA |
| Part-time | 97(9.7%) | 95(9.8%) | NA | NA |
| Unemployed | 209(20.9%) | 199(20.5%) | NA | NA |
*Taiwan general adult population = data from 2016 for all population with aged 20 or more
#Difference = Proportion in full sample- Proportion in Taiwan adult general population
Fig 1Distribution of C-TTO values.
Estimation results for C-TTO, DCE, and hybrid models (for full sample).
| C-TTO | DCE | Hybrid | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent variables | Tobit GLS model censored at -1 | Conditional logistic model, rescaled using theta derived from hybrid-Tobit model censored at -1 | With C-TTO values censored at -1 |
| Mobility (MO) | |||
| No to slight problem | 0.1054 (0.0132) | 0.0796 (0.0162) | 0.1076 (0.0112) |
| Slight to moderate problems | 0.1204 (0.0148) | 0.0939 (0.0170) | 0.0920 (0.0124) |
| Moderate to severe problems | 0.1336 (0.0163) | 0.1631 (0.0158) | 0.1656 (0.0125) |
| Severe to extreme problems | 0.0967 (0.0159) | 0.1517 (0.0168) | 0.1115 (0.0122) |
| Self-care (SC) | |||
| No to slight problem | 0.0816 (0.0127) | 0.0111 (0.0176) | 0.0757 (0.0110) |
| Slight to moderate problems | 0.0947 (0.0158) | 0.0557 (0.0175) | 0.0565 (0.0127) |
| Moderate to severe problems | 0.0714 (0.0161) | 0.1604 (0.0174) | 0.1322 (0.0129) |
| Severe to extreme problems | 0.0718 (0.0142) | 0.0749 (0.0162) | 0.0597 (0.0117) |
| Usual Activities (UA) | |||
| No to slight problem | 0.0569 (0.0133) | 0.0489 (0.0161) | 0.0726 (0.0111) |
| Slight to moderate problems | 0.0883 (0.0151) | 0.0117 (0.0163) | 0.0508 (0.0119) |
| Moderate to severe problems | 0.1504 (0.0163) | 0.1794 (0.0165) | 0.1568 (0.0124) |
| Severe to extreme problems | 0.0283 (0.0158) | 0.1005 (0.0170) | 0.0703 (0.0124) |
| Pain/Discomfort (PD) | |||
| No to slight problem | 0.0790 (0.0118) | 0.0764 (0.0167) | 0.0868 (0.0108) |
| Slight to moderate problems | 0.1006 (0.0164) | 0.0342 (0.0166) | 0.0710 (0.0124) |
| Moderate to severe problems | 0.1636 (0.0155) | 0.2038 (0.0167) | 0.1824 (0.0124) |
| Severe to extreme problems | 0.0901 (0.0169) | 0.1681 (0.0175) | 0.1132 (0.0127) |
| Anxiety/depression (AD) | |||
| No to slight problem | 0.0579 (0.0134) | 0.0322 (0.0173) | 0.0637 (0.0113) |
| Slight to moderate problems | 0.1480 (0.0157) | 0.1143 (0.0166) | 0.1192 (0.0125) |
| Moderate to severe problems | 0.1406 (0.0150) | 0.1453 (0.0176) | 0.1572 (0.0124) |
| Severe to extreme problems | 0.0790 (0.0140) | 0.1013 (0.0170) | 0.0811 (0.0119) |
| Range of possible values | [-0.9583, 1] | [-1.0065, 1] | [-1.0259, 1] |
| Log likelihood | -6180.705 | -3076.2541 | -11197.917 |
| AIC | 12405.410 | 6192.5083 | 22439.834 |
| BIC | 12564.038 | 6328.5166 | 22609.660 |
| RMSE | 0.4729 | NA | NA |
| MAE | 0.3601 | NA | NA |
Model estimates are presented as coefficient (SE).
¶p value <0.01.
AIC, Akaike information criteria; BIC, Bayesian information criteria; GLS, generalized least squares; MAE, mean absolute error; OLS, ordinary least squares; RMSE, root mean square error.
Selected predicted utility in C-TTO, DCE, and hybrid models (for full sample).
| C-TTO | DCE | Hybrid | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent variables | Tobit GLS model censored at -1 | Conditional logistic model, rescaled using theta derived from hybrid-Tobit model censored at -1# | With C-TTO values censored at -1 without considering heteroscedasticity and constant |
| Estimated utility values | |||
| U(21111) | 0.8946 | 0.9204 | 0.8924 |
| U(12111) | 0.9184 | 0.9889 | 0.9243 |
| U(11211) | 0.9431 | 0.9511 | 0.9274 |
| U(11121) | 0.9210 | 0.9236 | 0.9132 |
| U(11112) | 0.9421 | 0.9678 | 0.9363 |
| U(12345) | 0.0045 | 0.2208 | 0.0395 |
| U(42114) | 0.2125 | 0.3605 | 0.2190 |
| U(33511) | 0.2740 | 0.4192 | 0.3177 |
| U(25331) | 0.2503 | 0.4471 | 0.2871 |
| U(35411) | 0.1591 | 0.2844 | 0.1961 |
| U(34511) | 0.2026 | 0.2588 | 0.1855 |
| U(35412) | 0.1012 | 0.2522 | 0.1324 |
| U(33531) | 0.0944 | 0.3086 | 0.1599 |
| U(55512) | -0.1574 | -0.1631 | -0.2150 |
| U(52533) | -0.2471 | -0.0970 | -0.2436 |
| U(34544) | -0.4871 | -0.3474 | -0.4948 |
| U(34553) | -0.4366 | -0.3702 | -0.4508 |
| U(55433) | -0.4567 | -0.2875 | -0.4217 |
| U(35552) | -0.3604 | -0.3308 | -0.3913 |
| U(54454) | -0.7792 | -0.7298 | -0.8148 |
| U(55444) | -0.7609 | -0.6366 | -0.7613 |
| U(55552) | -0.5907 | -0.6456 | -0.6684 |
| U(54455) | -0.8582 | -0.8311 | -0.8959 |
| U(55554) | -0.8793 | -0.9052 | -0.9448 |
| U(55545) | -0.8682 | -0.8384 | -0.9127 |
Model estimates are presented as coefficient.
Fig 2Kernel density function of C-TTO, DCE and hybrid predicted utilities; total in 3125 health states.