Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35181827›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies.

Zhihao Yang, Fredrick Dermawan Purba, Asrul Akmal Shafie, Ataru Igarashi, Eliza Lai-Yi Wong, Hilton Lam, Hoang Van Minh, Hsiang-Wen Lin, Jeonghoon Ahn, Juntana Pattanaphesaj and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Zhihao YangHealth Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.
Fredrick Dermawan PurbaFaculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia.
Asrul Akmal ShafieSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Malaysia.
Ataru IgarashiDepartment of Drug Policy and Management, Faculty of Psychology, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Eliza Lai-Yi WongCentre for Health Systems and Policy Research, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Hilton LamInstitute of Health Policy and Development Studies, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.
Hoang Van MinhCenter for Population Health Sciences, Haoni University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Hsiang-Wen LinSchool of Pharmacy and Graduate Institute, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jeonghoon AhnDepartment of Health Convergence, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.
Juntana PattanaphesajMinistry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Min-Woo JoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Vu Quynh MaiCenter for Population Health Sciences, Haoni University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Jan BusschbachDepartment of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nan LuoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jie JiangSchool of Pharmacy, Jian University, No. 601 Huangpudadaoxi, Guangzhou, China. jiangjie218@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-2650

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 20180230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany countries have established their own EQ-5D value sets proceeding on the basis that health preferences differ among countries/populations. So far, published studies focused on comparing value set using TTO data. This study aims to compare the health preferences among 11 Asian populations using the DCE data collected in their EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.

methodsIn the EQ-VT protocol, 196 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were valued by a general population sample using DCE method for all studies. DCE data were obtained from the study PI. To understand how the health preferences are different/similar with each other, the following analyses were done: (1) the statistical difference between the coefficients; (2) the relative importance of the five EQ-5D dimensions; (3) the relative importance of the response levels.

resultsThe number of statistically differed coefficients between two studies ranged from 2 to 16 (mean: 9.3), out of 20 main effects coefficients. For the relative importance, there is not a universal preference pattern that fits all studies, but with some common characteristics, e.g. mobility is considered the most important; the relative importance of levels are approximately 20% for level 2, 30% for level 3, 70% for level 4 for all studies. DISCUSSION: Following a standardized study protocol, there are still considerable differences in the modeling and relative importance results in the EQ-5D-5L DCE data among 11 Asian studies. These findings advocate the use of local value set for calculating health state utility.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAsian PeopleHumansResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesAsianDCEEQ-5DHealth preference

Identifiers

PMID35181827
PMCPMC9188617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.