Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1323–1333 | Cite as

Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China

  • Liu Liu
  • Shunping Li
  • Yue Zhao
  • Jianglin Zhang
  • Gang Chen
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the validity of direct and indirect health state utility (HSU) and subjective well-being measures in psoriasis vulgaris patients.

Methods

A convenience sampling framework was used to successively recruit patients with psoriasis vulgaris from the outpatient clinics of a tertiary hospital in Changsha, Central South China. Participants completed time trade-off (TTO), standard gamble (SG), the five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), the WHO-5 well-being index, and the psoriasis disability index (PDI). The concurrent and known-groups validity of HSUs and well-being index in psoriasis patients were firstly studied. The agreements among HSUs and the relationship between HSU and well-being measures were further explored.

Results

A valid sample of 343 patients was analyzed. Mean HSU and well-being scores elicited from the EQ-5D-5L/TTO/SG and WHO-5 were 0.90/0.85/0.88 and 13.69, respectively. The Spearman correlation (concurrent validity) was the strongest between PDI and WHO-5 (r = 0.45), followed by with EQ-5D-5L (0.38), SG (r = 0.20), and the TTO (r = 0.18). The pairwise intraclass correlation coefficients among the three HSU measures were < 0.30. The known-groups validity was evident in all measures except for the SG. Exploratory factor analysis further suggests a complementary relationship between the EQ-5D-5L and WHO-5.

Conclusions

There is a poor agreement between direct and indirect methods on measuring HSU with psoriasis vulgaris. Results from this study recommend that the EQ-5D-5L is the most preferred method to elicit HSU from psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China. It is important to further analyze the subjective well-being in addition to the HSU to fully understand the impact of psoriasis.

Keywords

Psoriasis vulgaris Health state utility EQ-5D-5L Time trade-off Standard gamble Well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants for their time and effort. Responsibility for any remaining errors lies solely with the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the School of Medicine, Shandong University (Reference No. LL-201401044), and the research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_1819_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Parisi, R., Symmons, D. P., Griffiths, C. E., & Ashcroft, D. M., (2013). Global epidemiology of psoriasis: A systematic review of incidence and prevalence. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 133(2), 377–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ding, X., Wang, T., Shen, Y., Wang, X., Zhou, C., Tian, S., et al. (2012). Prevalence of psoriasis in China: A population-based study in six cities. European Journal of Dermatology, 22(5), 663–667.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shao, C. G., Zhang, G. W., & Wang, G. C. (1987). Distribution of psoriasis in China: A nationwide screening. Proceedings of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Peking Union Medical College, 2(2), 59–65.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palfreeman, A. C., McNamee, K. E., & McCann, F. E. (2013). New developments in the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A focus on apremilast. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 7, 201–210.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombo, D., & Perego, R. (2013). Quality of life in psoriasis. In H. Lima (Ed.), Psoriasis: types, causes and medication (Chap. 07). Rijeka: InTech.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    WHO (2016). Global Report on Psoriasis, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204417/1/9789241565189_eng.pdf. Accessed March 21 2017.
  7. 7.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118–133.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Attema, A. E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S53–S64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray, A. M., Clarke, P. M., Wolstenholme, J. L., & Wordsworth, S. (2010). Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richardson, J., Mckie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. Encyclopedia of Health Economics, 2, 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arnold, D., Girling, A., Stevens, A., & Lilford, R. (2009). Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. BMJ, 339, b2688.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cubi-Molla, P., de Vries, J., & Devlin, N. (2014). A study of the relationship between health and subjective well-being in Parkinson’s disease patients. Value in Health, 17(4), 372–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Kaambwa, B., Mccaffrey, N., & Richardson, J. (2017). Empirical comparison between capability and two health-related quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, (1), 1–16,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9.
  18. 18.
    Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2013). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 885–890.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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, 20(4), 662–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Topp, C. W., Ostergaard, S. D., Sondergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bech, P., Gudex, C., & Johansen, K. S. (1996). The WHO (Ten) well-being index: Validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, 65(4), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finlay, A. Y., & Kelly, S. E. (1987). Psoriasis: An index of disability. Clinical & Experimental Dermatology, 12(1), 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finlay, A. Y., & Coles, E. C. (1995). The effect of severe psoriasis on the quality of life of 369 patients. British Journal of Dermatology, 132(2), 236–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    He, Z., Lu, C., Ou, A., Fang, J., Wang, D., Deng, J., et al. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) in Chinese patients with psoriasis. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fredriksson, T., & Pettersson, U. (1978). Severe psoriasis–oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica, 157(4), 238–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmitt, J., & Wozel, G. (2005). The psoriasis area and severity index is the adequate criterion to define severity in chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Dermatology, 210(3), 194–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2013). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, D., Wang, D., Li, Y., et al. (2017). Assessing income-related health inequality and horizontal inequity in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poor, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulacsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvegi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309(5), 357–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Silverdahl, M., Hermansson, C., & Lindberg, M. (1999). Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. British Journal of Dermatology, 141(6), 1067–1075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boye, K. S., Matza, L. S., Feeny, D. H., Johnston, J. A., Bowman, L., & Jordan, J. B. (2014). Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: When should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 14(3), 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matza, L. S., Boye, K. S., Feeny, D. H., Bowman, L., Johnston, J. A., Stewart, K. D., et al. (2015). The time horizon matters: Results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation. European Journal of Health Economics Hepac Health Economics in Prevention & Care, 17(8), 1–12.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2017). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gamst-Klaussen, T., Chen, G., Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). Health state utility instruments compared: Inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1667–1678.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang, Y., Tan, N. C., Tay, E. G., Thumboo, J., & Luo, N. (2015). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Singapore. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C., Whitty, J. A., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2375–2381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health Care ManagementShandong UniversityJinanChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Health Economics and Policy ResearchNHFPC (Shandong University)JinanChina
  3. 3.Department of Dermatology, Heping HospitalChangzhi Medical CollegeChangzhiChina
  4. 4.Department of Dermatology, Xiangya HospitalCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  5. 5.Centre for Health Economic, Monash Business SchoolMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations