ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2024
Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients' perspective: a feasibility study.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and validity of EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels in patients with haematologic malignancies: a cross-sectional study in China.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Developing an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Singapore.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Risk prediction of cardiometabolic diseases with depression in the community of Xinjiang production and construction corps.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
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
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set using a small study design in cancer patients and to compare the EQ-5D-5L values based on the preferences of cancer patients with those of the general public.
methodsPatients with clinically diagnosed cancers were recruited from two hospitals in Shanghai, China. In face-to-face interviews using the EQ-PVT survey, health states were valued by cancer patients using both cTTO and DCE methods. cTTO data was modelled alone or jointly with DCE data. Forty-eight models using different model specifications (cross-attribute level effect [CALE] and additive models), random/fixed effects model assumptions, data heteroscedasticity and censoring were estimated. The best performed model was identified in terms of monotonicity of estimated model coefficients and out-of-sample prediction accuracy.
resultsData collected from 221 cancer patients who participated in the study were included. The hybrid CALE model using both TTO and DCE data performed best in terms of prediction accuracy (Lin's concordance coefficient = 0.989; root mean squared error = 0.058) and suggested that pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were the most undesirable health problems. Compared to values based on general Chinese public's health preferences, the values based on cancer patients' preferences were much higher and lower for health states characterized by extreme mobility problems and severe/extreme pain or discomfort, respectively.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the feasibility of using a small design to develop EQ-5D-5L value sets based on cancer patients' health preferences. Since there were signs of differences between preferences of patients and general population, it may be valuable to develop patient-specific value sets and use them in clinical decision making and economic evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37837519What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.