Comparison analysis of European quality of life-5 dimensions with three-level and five-level based on four types of people in China
-
摘要:
目的 分别在高血压、糖尿病、慢性肝炎患者和普通人群中,比较EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L量表的差异。 方法 用两量表对四类人群进行调查,比较两量表测量结果的一致性、再分布不一致性和信息区分能力。 结果 四类人群中,两量表效用值的组内相关系数均>0.7;EQ-5D-5L与EQ-5D-3L量表相比,天花板效应降幅分别为5.8%、8.3%、9.2%和17.3%;两量表五个维度的平均再分布不一致率分别为5.5%、7.6%、5.7%和2.2%,不一致情况主要集中在疼痛/不舒服和焦虑/抑郁两个维度;在四类人群中,除普通人群的自我照顾维度外,其余维度EQ-5D-5L量表的Shannon指数均优于EQ-5D-3L量表;Shannon均匀指数方面,在行动能力维度上四类人群均是EQ-5D-5L量表的值较大,两量表在其他四个维度对应的数值各有高低。 结论 在慢病人群中,EQ-5D-5L量表额外增加水平体现出其应有的优势,并能提高受访者对量表中健康状态的辨别能力,而在普通人群中EQ-5D-3L量表已能够满足研究需要。 Abstract:Objective To compare the difference of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients with hypertension, diabetes, chronic hepatitis and the general population. Methods Four groups of people were investigated by using two scales to compare the consistency, redistribution inconsistency and information discrimination. Results In the four types of people, the intra-group correlation coefficients of the utility value of the two scales were greater than 0.7. The ceiling reductions of EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L were 5.8%, 8.3%, 9.2% and 17.3%. The average redistribution rates of the EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in the five dimensions were 5.5%, 7.6%, 5.7% and 2.2%. The inconsistency mainly focused on the two dimensions of pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression. Among the four groups of people, Shannon index of EQ-5D-5L was superior to that of EQ-5D-3L in all dimensions except for the self-care dimension of the general population. In terms of the Shannon uniformity index, the value of the EQ-5D-5L scale was larger in the four types of people in the mobility dimension, and the two scales had different values in the other four dimensions. Conclusions In the disease population, the additional level of EQ-5D-5L reflects its advantages and improves the ability of the respondents to identify the health status, while in the general population, the EQ-5D-3L has been able to meet the research needs. -
Key words:
- Four types of people /
- EQ-5D-3L /
- EQ-5D-5L
-
表 1 研究对象的基本情况[n(%)]
Table 1. Basic situation of the research object [n(%)]
分组 高血压 糖尿病 慢性肝炎 普通人群 年龄(岁) ≤29 1(0.4) 2(0.8) 43(17.9) 100(33.9) 30~ 59(24.5) 47(19.5) 88(36.7) 123(41.7) ≥50 181(75.1) 192(79.7) 109(45.4) 72(24.4) 性别 男 119(49.4) 117(48.6) 122(50.8) 149(50.5) 女 122(50.6) 124(51.4) 118(49.2) 146(49.5) 民族 汉族 203(84.2) 212(88.0) 197(82.1) 260(88.1) 少数民族 38(15.8) 29(12.0) 43(17.9) 35(11.9) 婚姻状况 未婚 5(2.1) 7(2.9) 39(16.2) 104(35.3) 已婚 217(90.0) 217(90.0) 184(76.7) 180(61.0) 离婚/丧偶 19(7.9) 17(7.1) 17(7.1) 11(3.7) 文化程度 小学及以下 36(14.9) 48(19.9) 37(15.4) 14(4.8) 初中/高中(中专) 141(58.5) 142(58.9) 134(55.8) 132(44.7) 大学及以上 64(26.6) 51(21.2) 69(28.8) 149(50.5) 医疗保险 有 232(96.3) 234(97.1) 220(91.7) 281(95.2) 无 9(3.7) 7(2.9) 20(8.3) 14(4.8) 表 2 两量表效用值和EQ-VAS得分[x(95% CI)值]
Table 2. Utility value of two scales and EQ-VAS score [x(95% CI)值]
类别 3L量表 5L量表 组内相关系数 EQ-VAS得分 高血压 0.85(0.83~0.87) 0.86(0.83~0.88) 0.91(0.88~0.93) 72.95(70.99~74.90) 糖尿病 0.84(0.82~0.86) 0.85(0.83~0.88) 0.83(0.79~0.87) 72.80(70.89~74.72) 慢性肝炎 0.86(0.84~0.88) 0.87(0.84~0.89) 0.89(0.85~0.91) 72.99(70.92~75.05) 普通人群 0.96(0.95~0.97) 0.96(0.96~0.97) 0.71(0.63~0.77) 87.27(86.26~88.28) 表 3 两量表维度水平分布[n(%)]
Table 3. Distribution of dimensions and levels of the two scales[n(%)]
类别 水平 行动能力 自我照顾 日常活动 疼痛/不舒服 焦虑/抑郁 3L量表 5L量表 3L量表 5L量表 3L量表 5L量表 3L量表 5L量表 3L量表 5L量表 高血压 一 201(83.4) 187(77.6) 216(89.6) 209(86.7) 198(82.2) 198(82.2) 119(49.4) 111(46.1) 163(67.6) 127(52.7) 二 37(15.4) 31(12.9) 19(7.9) 20(8.3) 37(15.3) 22(9.1) 120(49.8) 87(36.1) 75(31.1) 84(34.9) 三 3(1.2) 15(6.2) 6(2.5) 5(2.1) 6(2.5) 12(5.0) 2(0.8) 35(14.5) 3(1.3) 22(9.1) 四 5(2.1) 3(1.2) 5(2.0) 6(2.5) 6(2.5) 五 3(1.2) 4(1. 7) 4(1.7) 2(0.8) 2(0.8) 糖尿病 一 195(80.9) 166(68.9) 223(92.5) 211(87.6) 191(79.3) 180(74.7) 112(46.5) 90(37.4) 152(63.1) 124(51.5) 二 45(18.7) 54(22.4) 16(6.7) 22(9.1) 48(19.9) 46(19.1) 120(49.8) 102(42.3) 81(33.6) 90(37.3) 三 1(0.4) 17(7.1) 2(0.8) 5(2.1) 2(0.8) 8(3.3) 9(3.7) 42(17.4) 8(3.3) 26(10.8) 四 2(0.8) 1(0.4) 3(1.2) 5(2.1) 0(0.0) 五 2(0.8) 2(0.8) 4(1.7) 2(0.8) 1(0.4) 慢性肝炎 一 204(85.0) 188(78.3) 221(92.1) 212(88.3) 205(85.4) 193(80.4) 139(57.9) 116(48.3) 145(60.4) 116(48.3) 二 32(13.3) 33(13.8) 18(7.5) 16(6.7) 32(13.3) 28(11.7) 96(40.0) 84(35.0) 91(37.9) 88(36.7) 三 4(1.7) 15(6.3) 1(0.4) 9(3.8) 3(1.3) 13(5.4) 5(2.1) 36(15.0) 4(1.7) 28(11.7) 四 2(0.8) 3(1.2) 2(0.8) 3(1.3) 7(2.9) 五 2(0.8) 0(0.0) 4(1.7) 1(0.4) 1(0.4) 普通人群 一 292(99.0) 285(96.6) 294(99.7) 295(100.0) 292(99.0) 288(97.7) 259(87.8) 232(78.7) 240(81.4) 197(66.8) 二 3(1.0) 10(3.4) 1(0.3) 0(0.0) 3(1.0) 6(2.0) 35(11.9) 61(20.7) 53(18.0) 83(28.2) 三 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(0.3) 1(0.3) 1(0.3) 2(0.6) 12(4.1) 四 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(0.3) 1(0.3) 五 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(0.6) 表 4 EQ-5D量表各维度的再分布不一致性[n(%)]
Table 4. Inconsistent redistribution in each dimension of the EQ-5D[n(%)]
类别 行动能力 自我照顾 日常活动 疼痛/不舒服 焦虑/抑郁 高血压 5(2.1) 3(1.2) 13(5.4) 25(10.4) 20(8.3) 糖尿病 16(6.6) 11(4.6) 17(7.1) 20(8.3) 27(11.2) 慢性肝炎 9(3.8) 6(2.5) 15(6.3) 20(8.3) 18(7.5) 普通人群 0(0.0) 1(0.3) 3(1.0) 13(4.4) 16(5.4) 表 5 两量表的Shannon指数和Shannon均匀指数
Table 5. Shannon index and Shannon uniformity index of two scales
维度 3L量表 5L量表 高血压 糖尿病 慢性肝炎 普通人群 高血压 糖尿病 慢性肝炎 普通人群 Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb Ha Jb 行动能力 0.69 0.44 0.76 0.48 0.70 0.44 0.08 0.05 1.09 0.47 1.25 0.54 1.05 0.45 0.19 0.08 自我照顾 0.54 0.34 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.33 0.66 0.29 0.68 0.29 0.00 0.00 日常活动 0.77 0.49 0.80 0.51 0.64 0.40 0.08 0.05 0.99 0.43 1.10 0.47 1.02 0.44 0.18 0.08 疼痛/不舒服 1.07 0.68 1.20 0.76 1.10 0.69 0.56 0.35 1.64 0.71 1.68 0.73 1.58 0.68 0.80 0.34 焦虑/抑郁 0.97 0.61 1.10 0.70 1.09 0.69 0.74 0.47 1.51 0.65 1.44 0.62 1.61 0.69 1.17 0.50 注:aH表示Shannon指数;bJ表示Shannon均匀指数。 -
[1] 吴海英.对现代健康观之心理健康维度的再认识[J].南京中医药大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, 18(1):53-56. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=njzyydxxb-shkxb201701010Wu HY. Reconsideration of psychological health in modern health concept[J]. J Nanjing Univ Tradit Chin Med (social science edition), 2017, 18(1):53-56. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=njzyydxxb-shkxb201701010 [2] 王文娟, 刘露, 江启成. EQ-5D与SF-12量表在安徽省农村糖尿病患者生命质量评估中的应用[J].中华疾病控制杂志, 2013, 17(4):287-290. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jbkzzz201304003Wang WJ, Liu L, Jiang QC. Application of EQ-5D and SF-12 scales in assessment of the quality of life in patients with diabetes in rural areas in Anhui Province[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2013, 17(4):287-290. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jbkzzz201304003 [3] 王俊, 王丽丹, 江启成.基于欧洲五维度健康评定量表的安徽省某农村地区糖尿病患者生命质量研究[J].中华疾病控制杂志, 2017, 21(11):1106-1110. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2017.11.007.Wang J, Wang LD, Jiang QC. Study on the quality of life in diabetic patients from one rural area of Anhui Province based on EQ-5D-5L[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2017, 21(11):1106-1110. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2017.11.007. [4] 周挺, 官海静, 刘国恩.基于中国普通人群的EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L比较研究[J].中国卫生经济, 2016, 35(3):17-20. DOI: 10.7664/CHE20160304.Zhou T, Guan HJ, Liu GE. Comparison analysis on the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L for general population in China[J]. Chin Health Eco, 2016, 35(3):17-20. DOI: 10.7664/CHE20160304. [5] 刘柳.欧洲五维健康量表EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L的比较研究[D].济南: 山东大学, 2018.Liu L. Comparison between the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients with acne[D]. Jinan: Shandong university, 2018. [6] Gandhi M, Ang M, Teo K, et al. EQ-5D-5L is more responsive than EQ-5D-3L to treatment benefit of cataract surgery[J]. The Patient Outcomes Res, 2019, 12(4):383-392. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-00354-7. [7] Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B[J]. Qual Life Res, 2014, 23(8):2355-2363. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3. [8] Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients[J]. Qual Life Res, 2015, 24(7):1767-1774. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6. [9] 邢亚彬, 马爱霞.欧洲五维健康量表EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L中文版比较的实证研究[J].上海医药, 2013, 34(7):27-31. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=shyy201307011Xing YB, Ma AX. The empirical study on the comparison between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Chinese versions of the European five-dimensional health scale[J]. Shanghai Med Pharm J, 2013, 34(7):27-31. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=shyy201307011 [10] 王晓楠, 王丽, 范坤.中国西部农村脑卒中患者健康相关生命质量及其影响因素:基于EQ-5D量表的调查结果[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志, 2020, 19(9):641-645. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-ZLQG202009001.htmWang XN, Wang L, Fan K. Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors in stroke patients in rural Areas of Western China:findings based on the EQ-5D scale[J]. Chin J Multi Org Dis in the Elderly, 2020, 19(9):641-645. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-ZLQG202009001.htm [11] Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, et al. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states[J]. Value in Health, 2014, 17(5):597-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007. [12] Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China[J]. Value in Health, 2017, 20(4):662-669. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016. [13] Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups:a multi-country study[J]. Qual Life Res, 2013, 22(7):1717-1727. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. [14] Jin XJ, Al SF, Ohinmaa A, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients following total hip or knee replacement[J]. Qual Life Res, 2019, 28(9):2409-2417. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02200-1.