Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41212433›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026

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.

Yiyin Cao, Haofei Li, Xu Jin, Madeleine T King, Richard Norman, Ling Jie Cheng, Hongjuan Yu, Weidong Huang, Nan Luo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yiyin Cao *School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Haofei Li *School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Xu JinSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Madeleine T KingSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Richard NormanSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Ling Jie ChengNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hongjuan YuDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. yuhongjuan2008@163.com.
Weidong HuangSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. huangweidong@hrbmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6107-5305
Nan LuoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 71974048National Natural Science Foundation of China 72274045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a value set for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) based on the preferences of Chinese cancer patients, and to compare results with the Chinese general population value set.

methodsPatients with mixed cancer diagnoses were recruited from two hospitals in China between September and November 2024. Patients completed the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) valuation survey consisting of 16 choice sets through face-to-face interviews. A conditional logit model was applied to analyze patient preferences. The characteristics and sensitivity of the derived QLU-C10D value set were compared with those of the Chinese general population QLU-C10D value set. Sensitivity was evaluated by ability to discriminate cancer stage and performance status, and effect sizes (ES) were estimated.

resultsData from 659 cancer patients were analyzed. The cancer patients' value set showed a broader utility range (-0.092 to 1.0) compared to the general population's value set (0.083 to 1). The mean utility score for the cancer patient sample (0.656) was significantly lower than that for the general population (0.738, P < 0.01). Both value sets demonstrated good sensitivity, but the cancer patients' value set was more effective in distinguishing clinical subgroup differences (ES = 2.76-4.46 vs. ES = 2.47-3.48).

conclusionDifferences in value sets between cancer patients and the general population underscore the importance of more comprehensively integrating patient perspectives into existing evaluation frameworks.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeAdultAgedChinaFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesCancer patientsChinaGeneral populationQLU-C10DValue set

Identifiers

PMID41212433

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.