目的:使用三种通用的健康效用量表(CQ-11D,EQ-5D-5L,和SF-6D),并比较不同量表所得结果的差异,为今后对中国人群健康相关生活质量的效用提供参考。
方法:根据中国人口的分布区域,性别,和年龄,进行了配额抽样。三个尺度,CQ-11D,EQ-5D-5L,和SF-6D,他们的结果是自我报告的,是在收集受访者的人口统计信息后连续收集的。解释了健康效用值和地板/天花板效应。Bland-Altman用于评估一致性,使用组内相关系数来评估相关性,受试者工作特征曲线用于评价量表的判别效度。
结果:CQ-11D的平均效用值,EQ-5D-5L,和SF-6D量表,分别,分别为0.891、0.927和0.841。地板效应没有出现在三个尺度中的任何一个,但是天花板效应确实如此,EQ-5D-5L天花板效应最为严重。在总样本人群中,CQ-11D与EQ-5D-5L的一致区间的极限为(-0.245,0.172);对于CQ-11D与SF-6D,它们是(-0.256,0.354);对于EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D,他们是(-0.199,0.371)。三个量表的一致性总体上令人满意。在总人口中,CQ-11D和EQ-5D-5L之间的组内相关系数为0.709,而EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D之间的组内相关系数为0.0.565,EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D之间的组内相关系数为0.472。根据受试者的操作曲线结果,CQ-11D总样本群体的曲线下面积为0.746,EQ-5D-5L为0.669,SF-6D为0.734.
结论:CQ-11D劣于EQ-5D-5L,但优于SF-6D。三种量表衡量的总人口的健康效用值与健康人群的健康效用值之间存在很强的相关性。CQ-11D量表对人群和疾病之间的差别最为敏感。
OBJECTIVE: To measure health-related quality of life in the Chinese population using three universal health utility scales (CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D) and to compare the differences in the results obtained by the different scales to provide a reference for future utility on health-related quality of life in the Chinese population.
METHODS: According to the Chinese population\'s distribution area, gender, and age, quota sampling was conducted. Three scales, CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D, whose results were self-reported, were collected in succession after collecting respondents\' demographic information. The health utility value and floor/ceiling effect were explained. Bland-Altman was used to evaluate the consistency, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the discriminative validity of the scale.
RESULTS: The mean utility values of the CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D scales, respectively, were 0.891, 0.927, and 0.841. The floor effect did not appear in any of the three scales, but the ceiling effect did, and the EQ-5D-5L ceiling effect was the most severe. The limits of the agreement interval for CQ-11D versus EQ-5D-5L in the total sample population were (-0.245,0.172); for CQ-11D versus SF-6D, they were (- 0.256,0.354); and for EQ-5D-5L versus SF-6D, they were (-0.199,0.371). The consistency of the three scales is satisfactory overall. In the total population, the intraclass correlation coefficient between CQ-11D and EQ-5D-5L was 0.709, while EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were 0.0.565 and that between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was 0.472. According to the subject operation curve results, the area under the curve for the total sample population of CQ-11D was 0.746, EQ-5D-5L was 0.669, and SF-6D was 0.734.
CONCLUSIONS: The CQ-11D is inferior to the EQ-5D-5L, but superior to the SF-6D. There is a strong correlation between the health utility values of the total population as measured by the three scales and those of the healthy population. The CQ-11D scale is the most sensitive to differences between populations and diseases.