Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.
Gepubliceerd in:
13-09-2024
Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D
Auteurs: Yiyin Cao, Juan Xu, Richard Norman, Madeleine T. King, Georg Kemmler, Weidong Huang, Nan Luo
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2024
Log in om toegang te krijgenshare
DELEN
Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)
-
Optie A:
-
Optie B:Deel de link per e-mail
Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study is to provide Chinese utility weights for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (EORTC QLU-C10D) which is a preference-based cancer-specific utility instrument derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30.
Methods
We conducted an online survey of the general population in China, with quota sampling for age and gender. Each respondent was asked to complete a discrete choice experimental survey consisting of 16 randomly selected choice sets. The conditional logit model and mixed logit model were used to analyze respondents’ preferences, and the goodness of fit of the model was tested.
Results
A total of 2003 respondents were included in the analysis. Utility decrements within dimensions were typically monotonic. Monotonic inconsistency issues in the Fatigue, Sleep, and Nausea dimensions were normalized by monotonicity correction. Physical functioning, Pain, and Role functioning were associated with the greatest utility weights, with the smallest decrements being in Bowel problems and Emotional functioning. The utility value for the worst health state was 0.083, i.e. slightly higher than being dead.
Conclusions
This study provides the first China-specific set of value for the QLU-C10D based on societal preferences of the Chinese adult general population. The value set can be used as a cancer-specific scoring system for economic evaluations of new oncology therapies and technologies in China.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021). Cancer statistics, 2021. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21654CrossRef
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021). Cancer statistics, 2021. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21654CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRef
Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRef
3.
go back to reference McGuire, S., & WHO Press. (2016). World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015. Adv Nutr, 7(2), 418–419. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012211
McGuire, S., & WHO Press. (2016). World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015. Adv Nutr, 7(2), 418–419. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012211
4.
go back to reference World Health Organization. (2020). World cancer report: Cancer research for cancer prevention. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
World Health Organization. (2020). World cancer report: Cancer research for cancer prevention. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
5.
go back to reference Zheng, R. S., Zhang, S. W., Sun, K. X., Chen, R., Wang, S. M., Li, L., Zeng, H. M., Wei, W. W., & He, J. (2023). [Cancer statistics in China, 2016]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi, 45(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20220922-00647CrossRefPubMed
Zheng, R. S., Zhang, S. W., Sun, K. X., Chen, R., Wang, S. M., Li, L., Zeng, H. M., Wei, W. W., & He, J. (2023). [Cancer statistics in China, 2016]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi, 45(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20220922-00647CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference United Nations. World population prospects. New York: United Nations (2022). https://population.un.org/wpp/
United Nations. World population prospects. New York: United Nations (2022). https://population.un.org/wpp/
7.
go back to reference Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., Parkin, D. M., Forman, D., & Bray, F. (2015). Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer, 136(5), E359–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210CrossRefPubMed
Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., Parkin, D. M., Forman, D., & Bray, F. (2015). Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer, 136(5), E359–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G., & Hansen, R. W. (2016). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics, 47, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.01.012CrossRefPubMed
DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G., & Hansen, R. W. (2016). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics, 47, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.01.012CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Elkin, E. B., Weinstein, M. C., Winer, E. P., Kuntz, K. M., Schnitt, S. J., & Weeks, J. C. (2004). HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(5), 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.04.158CrossRefPubMed
Elkin, E. B., Weinstein, M. C., Winer, E. P., Kuntz, K. M., Schnitt, S. J., & Weeks, J. C. (2004). HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(5), 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.04.158CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Khalili, F., Najafi, B., Mansour-Ghanaei, F., Yousefi, M., Abdollahzad, H., & Motlagh, A. (2020). Cost-effectiveness analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A systematic review. Risk Manag Healthc Policy, 13, 1499–1512. https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.S262171CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Khalili, F., Najafi, B., Mansour-Ghanaei, F., Yousefi, M., Abdollahzad, H., & Motlagh, A. (2020). Cost-effectiveness analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A systematic review. Risk Manag Healthc Policy, 13, 1499–1512. https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.S262171CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Clark, T. J., Barton, P. M., Coomarasamy, A., Gupta, J. K., & Khan, K. S. (2006). Investigating postmenopausal bleeding for endometrial cancer: Cost-effectiveness of initial diagnostic strategies. Bjog, 113(5), 502–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00914.xCrossRefPubMed
Clark, T. J., Barton, P. M., Coomarasamy, A., Gupta, J. K., & Khan, K. S. (2006). Investigating postmenopausal bleeding for endometrial cancer: Cost-effectiveness of initial diagnostic strategies. Bjog, 113(5), 502–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00914.xCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hu, S., Gu, S., Qi, C., Wang, S., Qian, F., Shi, C., & Fan, G. (2023). Cost-utility analysis of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes after its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism, 25(2), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14881CrossRef
Hu, S., Gu, S., Qi, C., Wang, S., Qian, F., Shi, C., & Fan, G. (2023). Cost-utility analysis of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes after its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism, 25(2), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14881CrossRef
13.
go back to reference World Health Organization. WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. Geneva: World Health Organization (2020). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240011878
World Health Organization. WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. Geneva: World Health Organization (2020). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240011878
14.
go back to reference Yu, H., Zhang, H., Yang, J., Liu, C., Lu, C., Yang, H., Huang, W., Zhou, J., Fu, W., Shi, L., Yan, Y., Liu, G., & Li, L. (2018). Health utility scores of family caregivers for leukemia patients measured by EQ-5D-3L: A cross-sectional survey in China. Bmc Cancer, 18(1), 950. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4855-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Yu, H., Zhang, H., Yang, J., Liu, C., Lu, C., Yang, H., Huang, W., Zhou, J., Fu, W., Shi, L., Yan, Y., Liu, G., & Li, L. (2018). Health utility scores of family caregivers for leukemia patients measured by EQ-5D-3L: A cross-sectional survey in China. Bmc Cancer, 18(1), 950. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4855-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013). https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013). https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9
16.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). https://www.cadth.ca/
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). https://www.cadth.ca/
17.
go back to reference Haute Autorité de Santé Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation - A Methodological Guide. Saint-Denis La Plaine: Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). https://www.has-sante.fr/
Haute Autorité de Santé Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation - A Methodological Guide. Saint-Denis La Plaine: Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). https://www.has-sante.fr/
18.
go back to reference Drummond, M. F., Aguiar-Ibanez, R., & Nixon, J. (2006). Economic evaluation. Singapore Medical Journal, 47(6), 456–461. quiz 462.PubMed
Drummond, M. F., Aguiar-Ibanez, R., & Nixon, J. (2006). Economic evaluation. Singapore Medical Journal, 47(6), 456–461. quiz 462.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. F. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer: A review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(8), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.2165/11588250-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed
Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. F. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer: A review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(8), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.2165/11588250-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference King, M. T., Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Costa, D. S. J., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Peacock, S., Janda, M., Müller, F., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., & Cella, D. (2021). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(6), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.007CrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Costa, D. S. J., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Peacock, S., Janda, M., Müller, F., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., & Cella, D. (2021). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(6), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.007CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Gibson, A. E. J., Longworth, L., Bennett, B., Pickard, A. S., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). Assessing the content validity of preference-based measures in Cancer. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 27(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.006CrossRefPubMed
Gibson, A. E. J., Longworth, L., Bennett, B., Pickard, A. S., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). Assessing the content validity of preference-based measures in Cancer. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 27(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.006CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference López-Bastida, J., Oliva, J., Antoñanzas, F., García-Altés, A., Gisbert, R., Mar, J., & Puig-Junoy, J. (2010). Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(5), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0244-4CrossRefPubMed
López-Bastida, J., Oliva, J., Antoñanzas, F., García-Altés, A., Gisbert, R., Mar, J., & Puig-Junoy, J. (2010). Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(5), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0244-4CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., Norman, R., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & Viney, R. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-yCrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., Norman, R., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & Viney, R. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-yCrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference King, M. T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S. J., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D. J., Young, T. A., & Norman, R. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics, 36(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5CrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S. J., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D. J., Young, T. A., & Norman, R. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics, 36(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., Costa, D. S. J., Pickard, A. S., Regier, D. A., Viney, R., & Peacock, S. J. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to Derive Cancer-Specific Utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract, 4(1), 2381468319842532. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468319842532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., Costa, D. S. J., Pickard, A. S., Regier, D. A., Viney, R., & Peacock, S. J. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to Derive Cancer-Specific Utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract, 4(1), 2381468319842532. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468319842532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., Nerich, V., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., & King, M. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 28(12), 3197–3211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02283-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., Nerich, V., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., & King, M. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 28(12), 3197–3211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02283-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., & King, M. T. (2019). U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950CrossRefPubMed
Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., & King, M. T. (2019). U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Efficace, F., Cottone, F., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02536-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Efficace, F., Cottone, F., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02536-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., King, M., Holzner, B., Viney, R., & Kemmler, G. (2021). French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1CrossRefPubMed
Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., King, M., Holzner, B., Viney, R., & Kemmler, G. (2021). French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Holzner, B., King, M., & Kemmler, G. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of Life Research, 30(7), 2009–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02767-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Holzner, B., King, M., & Kemmler, G. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of Life Research, 30(7), 2009–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02767-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Shaw, J. W., Müller, F., & Norman, R. (2021). United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument based on a Cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x211003569CrossRefPubMed
Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Shaw, J. W., Müller, F., & Norman, R. (2021). United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument based on a Cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x211003569CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Finch, A. P., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., King, M., & Kemmler, G. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Spain using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Pharmacoeconomics, 39(9), 1085–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01058-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Finch, A. P., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., King, M., & Kemmler, G. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Spain using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Pharmacoeconomics, 39(9), 1085–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01058-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Lehmann, J., Rojas-Concha, L., Petersen, M. A., Holzner, B., Norman, R., King, M. T., & Kemmler, G. (2024). Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument. Quality of Life Research, 33(3), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03569-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Lehmann, J., Rojas-Concha, L., Petersen, M. A., Holzner, B., Norman, R., King, M. T., & Kemmler, G. (2024). Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument. Quality of Life Research, 33(3), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03569-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T., King, M. T., Norman, R., Müller, F., Campbell, R., Kemmler, G., Murata, T., Shimozuma, K., & Fukuda, T. (2024). Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 33(7), 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03655-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Shiroiwa, T., King, M. T., Norman, R., Müller, F., Campbell, R., Kemmler, G., Murata, T., Shimozuma, K., & Fukuda, T. (2024). Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 33(7), 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03655-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed
Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 17(5), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007CrossRefPubMed
Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 17(5), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., & Chen, J. (2018). Time Trade-Off Value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally Representative Chinese Population Survey. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 21(11), 1330–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1370CrossRefPubMed
Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., & Chen, J. (2018). Time Trade-Off Value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally Representative Chinese Population Survey. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 21(11), 1330–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1370CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Liu, G. G., Guan, H., Jin, X., Zhang, H., Vortherms, S. A., & Wu, H. (2022). Rural population’s preferences matter: A value set for the EQ-5D-3L health states for China’s rural population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01917-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Liu, G. G., Guan, H., Jin, X., Zhang, H., Vortherms, S. A., & Wu, H. (2022). Rural population’s preferences matter: A value set for the EQ-5D-3L health states for China’s rural population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01917-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Yang, Z., Jiang, J., Wang, P., Jin, X., Wu, J., Fang, Y., Feng, D., Xi, X., Li, S., Jing, M., Zheng, B., Huang, W., & Luo, N. (2022). Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L value set for China. Pharmacoeconomics, 40(Suppl 2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01216-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Yang, Z., Jiang, J., Wang, P., Jin, X., Wu, J., Fang, Y., Feng, D., Xi, X., Li, S., Jing, M., Zheng, B., Huang, W., & Luo, N. (2022). Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L value set for China. Pharmacoeconomics, 40(Suppl 2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01216-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
go back to reference Wu, J., Xie, S., He, X., Chen, G., Bai, G., Feng, D., Hu, M., Jiang, J., Wang, X., Wu, H., Wu, Q., & Brazier, J. E. (2021). Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health states in China using Time Trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics, 39(5), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00997-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Wu, J., Xie, S., He, X., Chen, G., Bai, G., Feng, D., Hu, M., Jiang, J., Wang, X., Wu, H., Wu, Q., & Brazier, J. E. (2021). Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health states in China using Time Trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics, 39(5), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00997-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Peeters, Y., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2010). Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 13(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.xCrossRefPubMed
Peeters, Y., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2010). Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 13(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.xCrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Stiggelbout, A. M., & de Haes, J. C. (2001). Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(1), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.220CrossRefPubMed
Stiggelbout, A. M., & de Haes, J. C. (2001). Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(1), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.220CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Loth, F. L. C., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2022). The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: A first step towards patient utility weights. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00430-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Loth, F. L. C., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2022). The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: A first step towards patient utility weights. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00430-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., Holzner, B., King, M. T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., & Kemmler, G. (2018). Test-retest reliability of Discrete Choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D Health states. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 21(8), 958–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012CrossRefPubMed
Gamper, E. M., Holzner, B., King, M. T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., & Kemmler, G. (2018). Test-retest reliability of Discrete Choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D Health states. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 21(8), 958–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Street, D. J., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & King, M. T. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3CrossRefPubMed
Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Street, D. J., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & King, M. T. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One method, many methodological choices: A structured review of Discrete-Choice experiments for Health State Valuation. Pharmacoeconomics, 37(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6CrossRefPubMed
Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One method, many methodological choices: A structured review of Discrete-Choice experiments for Health State Valuation. Pharmacoeconomics, 37(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). China Statistical Yearbook. China Statistic Publishing House.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). China Statistical Yearbook. China Statistic Publishing House.
48.
go back to reference National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2020). The 2019 Population Census of the people’s Republic of China. China Statistic Publishing House.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2020). The 2019 Population Census of the people’s Republic of China. China Statistic Publishing House.
49.
go back to reference United Nations Statistics Division. (2010). Population Censuses’ Datasets. United Nations.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2010). Population Censuses’ Datasets. United Nations.
50.
go back to reference Norman, R., Kemmler, G., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Gamper, E., Holzner, B., Nerich, V., & King, M. (2016). Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(8), 1033–1038. http://www.99885.net/doi.php?doi=10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003
Norman, R., Kemmler, G., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Gamper, E., Holzner, B., Nerich, V., & King, M. (2016). Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(8), 1033–1038. http://www.99885.net/doi.php?doi=10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003
51.
go back to reference National Health Commission of China. (2020). China Health Statistics Yearbook. Peking Union Medical College Publishing House.
National Health Commission of China. (2020). China Health Statistics Yearbook. Peking Union Medical College Publishing House.
52.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., de Haes, J. C., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365CrossRefPubMed
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., de Haes, J. C., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Giesinger, J. M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Cottone, F., Cella, D., & Gamper, E. M. (2021). Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in Randomized Cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(4), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.11.004CrossRefPubMed
Giesinger, J. M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Cottone, F., Cella, D., & Gamper, E. M. (2021). Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in Randomized Cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(4), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.11.004CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Gao, S., Corrigan, P. W., Qin, S., & Nieweglowski, K. (2019). Comparing Chinese and European American mental health decision making. Journal of Mental Health (Abingdon, England), 28(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1417543CrossRefPubMed
Gao, S., Corrigan, P. W., Qin, S., & Nieweglowski, K. (2019). Comparing Chinese and European American mental health decision making. Journal of Mental Health (Abingdon, England), 28(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1417543CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N. K., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., Koller, M., Petersen, M. A., & Sprangers, M. A. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Qual Life Res, 15(6), 1103–1115; discussion 1117–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0040-x
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N. K., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., Koller, M., Petersen, M. A., & Sprangers, M. A. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Qual Life Res, 15(6), 1103–1115; discussion 1117–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0040-x
56.
go back to reference Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., & Shimozuma, K. (2016). Comparison of Value Set based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health states in Japan. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(5), 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834CrossRefPubMed
Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., & Shimozuma, K. (2016). Comparison of Value Set based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health states in Japan. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(5), 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Yang, Z., van Busschbach, J., Timman, R., Janssen, M. F., & Luo, N. (2017). Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it? PLoS One, 12(9), e0184883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Yang, Z., van Busschbach, J., Timman, R., Janssen, M. F., & Luo, N. (2017). Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it? PLoS One, 12(9), e0184883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
go back to reference Jin, X., Liu, G. G., Luo, N., Li, H., Guan, H., & Xie, F. (2016). Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 979–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1129-xCrossRefPubMed
Jin, X., Liu, G. G., Luo, N., Li, H., Guan, H., & Xie, F. (2016). Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 979–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1129-xCrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
- Titel
- Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D
- Auteurs
-
Yiyin Cao
Juan Xu
Richard Norman
Madeleine T. King
Georg Kemmler
Weidong Huang
Nan Luo
- Publicatiedatum
- 13-09-2024
- Uitgeverij
- Springer International Publishing
- Gepubliceerd in
-
Quality of Life Research
/ Uitgave 12/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649 - DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03776-z
