Richard Huan Xu1, Eliza Lai-Yi Wong1, Jun Jin2, Huiqiang Huang3, Dong Dong4. 1. The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. 4. The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. dongdong@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the health preference-based index scores of the population of patients with lymphoma using the EQ-5D in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to examine the health and well-being of patients with lymphoma in China. Their health-related quality of life (HRQoL; using the EQ-5D), demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and health conditions were assessed. The data were analyzed using Pearson's χ2 test, analysis of variance, and binary logistic and Tobit regression models. RESULTS: A total of 3261 patients (sex: men = 58.5%, age: < 30 years = 9.5% and > 60 years = 24.6%) participated in the study. The mean EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores were 0.83 and 68.8, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that women reported more pain-related problems than men did. Unemployed participants were substantially more likely to report health problems on all the five dimensions of the EQ-5D than their employed counterparts. The Tobit regression model revealed that respondents who were older, unemployed, with low income, received chemotherapy, and with short durations reported a low index score. CONCLUSION: Using the EQ-5D, the preference-based scores of different subpopulations of patients with lymphoma may support economic evaluation by promoting the simultaneous consideration of both the reasonable use of resources and satisfactory achievement of health outcomes.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the health preference-based index scores of the population of patients with lymphoma using the EQ-5D in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to examine the health and well-being of patients with lymphoma in China. Their health-related quality of life (HRQoL; using the EQ-5D), demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and health conditions were assessed. The data were analyzed using Pearson's χ2 test, analysis of variance, and binary logistic and Tobit regression models. RESULTS: A total of 3261 patients (sex: men = 58.5%, age: < 30 years = 9.5% and > 60 years = 24.6%) participated in the study. The mean EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores were 0.83 and 68.8, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that women reported more pain-related problems than men did. Unemployed participants were substantially more likely to report health problems on all the five dimensions of the EQ-5D than their employed counterparts. The Tobit regression model revealed that respondents who were older, unemployed, with low income, received chemotherapy, and with short durations reported a low index score. CONCLUSION: Using the EQ-5D, the preference-based scores of different subpopulations of patients with lymphoma may support economic evaluation by promoting the simultaneous consideration of both the reasonable use of resources and satisfactory achievement of health outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
China; EQ-5D; Health-related quality of life; Lymphoma
Authors: Fanni Rencz; László Gulácsi; Michael Drummond; Dominik Golicki; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Judit Simon; Elly A Stolk; Valentin Brodszky; Petra Baji; Jakub Závada; Guenka Petrova; Alexandru Rotar; Márta Péntek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Auayporn Nademanee; Tamas Masszi; Jerzy Holowiecki; Muneer Abidi; Andy Chen; Patrick Stiff; Simonetta Viviani; John W Sweetenham; John Radford; Yanyan Zhu; Vijayveer Bonthapally; Elizabeth Thomas; Akshara Richhariya; Naomi N Hunder; Jan Walewski; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Michael Jefford; Andrew C Ward; Karolina Lisy; Karen Lacey; Jon D Emery; Adam W Glaser; Hannah Cross; Mei Krishnasamy; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Jim Bishop Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: A Davies; A Waylen; S Leary; S Thomas; M Pring; B Janssen; R Beynon; S Lang; S Schimansky; K Hurley; A Ness Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Adam W Glaser; Lorna K Fraser; Jessica Corner; Richard Feltbower; Eva J A Morris; Greg Hartwell; Mike Richards; Richard Wagland Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Moritz Ernst; Annika Oeser; Burcu Besiroglu; Julia Caro-Valenzuela; Mohamed Abd El Aziz; Ina Monsef; Peter Borchmann; Lise J Estcourt; Nicole Skoetz; Marius Goldkuhle Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-13