ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the health utility values of patients with six common cancers in China using the QLU-C10D: A cross-sectional survey.iScience · 2026Article
- Quality of life utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) scores based on cancer patients' health preferences are more sensitive than those based on general public's health preferences.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Developing a patient-based utility value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D using the OPUF method in Chinese cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop utility weights for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument, tailored to the Norwegian and Swedish populations. The utility weights are intended for use in the specific welfare contexts of Norway and Sweden to support more precise healthcare decision-making in cancer treatment and care.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 1019 Norwegian and 1048 Swedish participants representative in age and gender of the two general populations. Participants completed a discrete choice experiment involving 960 choice sets, each consisting of two EORTC QLU-C10D health states described by the instrument's domains and the duration of each state. Utility weights were calculated using generalized estimation equation models, and non-monotonic levels were merged to ensure consistent valuation.
resultsIn the Norwegian participants, the largest utility decrements were seen for the domain of physical functioning (decrement of - 0.263 for highest level "very much"), followed by pain (decrement - 0.205 for level "very much") and role functioning (- 0.139). Among the cancer-specific domains, nausea had the largest utility decrement (- 0.124). In the Swedish participants, the largest utility decrements were also observed for physical functioning (- 0.207 for the response "very much"), followed by pain (- 0.139), role functioning (- 0.133), and nausea (- 0.119). Emotional functioning also exhibited a sizable utility decrement (- 0.115).
conclusionThis study provides the first set of utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D specific to Norway and Sweden, reflecting the unique health preferences of these populations. The generated utility decrements can inform cost-utility analyses and optimize resource allocation in cancer care within the Norwegian and Swedish healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.