Self-Reported Population Health_ An Intern - Agota Szende, Bas Janssen
Self-Reported Population Health_ An Intern - Agota Szende, Bas Janssen
Bas Janssen
EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Juan Cabasés
Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
References
Index
Contributors
Juan Cabasés
Department of Economics, Public University of Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain
Bas Janssen
Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Rosalind Rabin
EuroQol Group, London, UK
Agota Szende
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research
Covance, Leeds, UK
© The Author(s) 2014
Agota Szende, Bas Janssen and Juan Cabases (eds.), Self-Reported
Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1_1
1. Introduction
Juan Cabasés1 and Rosalind Rabin2
Juan Cabasés
Email: [email protected]
1.2 EQ-5D
EQ-5D is a standardized health-related quality of life
questionnaire developed by the EuroQol Group in
order to provide a simple, generic measure of health
for clinical and economic appraisal (EuroQol Group
1990). Applicable to a wide range of health conditions
and treatments, it provides a simple descriptive
profile, a self-report visual analogue scale and a
single index value for health status that can be used
in the clinical and economic evaluation of health care
as well as in population health surveys (Fig. 1.1).
Fig. 1.1 EQ-5D-3L
EQ-5D is designed for self-completion by
respondents and is suited for use in postal surveys,
web-based applications, and in face-to-face
interviews. It is cognitively undemanding, taking only
a few minutes to complete. The instructions to
respondents are included in the questionnaire.
The EQ-5D consists of 2 pages – the EQ-5D
descriptive system (page 2) and the EQ VAS (page
3). The EQ-5D descriptive system comprises five
dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities,
pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. The EQ-5D
is available in three level and five level response
options, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L, respectively, and a
youth version, EQ-5D-Y.
The EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D 3 level) was introduced in
1990 and is available in more than 160 translated
versions. Although the EQ-5D-3L was initially
designed for self-completion in paper-and-pencil
format, EQ-5D-3L data are currently also collected
electronically by web or tablet versions, or by
following a telephone interviewer script. Each
dimension has three levels: no problems, some
problems, severe problems/unable to. The
respondent is asked to indicate his/her health state by
ticking (or placing a cross) in the box against the most
appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions.
This decision results in a 1-digit number expressing
the level selected for that dimension. The digits for
the five dimensions can be combined in a 5-digit
number (‘profile’) describing the respondent’s health
state. It should be noted that the numerals 1–3 have
no arithmetic properties and should not be used as a
cardinal score.
The EQ VAS records the respondent’s self-rated
health on a vertical, visual analogue scale where the
endpoints are labelled ‘Best imaginable health state’
and ‘Worst imaginable health state’. This information
can be used as a quantitative measure of health
outcome as judged by the individual respondents.
The responses to the EQ-5D dimensions can be
used to obtain a single index value (EQ-5D index) for
all health states described by the 5-digit number.
Given the five dimension and three-level response
option format of the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, there
are 243 possible health states plus dead and
unconscious. An index value is attached to each EQ-
5D state according to a particular set of weights or
value sets that measure health states on a scale
anchored at 1 = full health and 0 = dead. Value sets
(previously also referred to as “tariffs”) were based on
representative samples of the general population (as
opposed to patients) of a particular country or
regions, and used a technique for valuing health
states with the EQ-5D VAS rating scale or the Time
Trade-Off technique. A distinction should be made
between the EQ-VAS self-report question for
measuring health outcome and the EQ-5D valuation
questionnaire that is designed to collect valuations for
health states defined by the EQ-5D descriptive
system using the EQ-5D VAS rating scale.
The EQ-5D index values can be used in the
estimations of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as
standard QALY calculations require valuations for all
relevant health states on a scale anchored at 1 = full
health and 0 = dead. While the EQ-5D index values
(and QALYs based on it) are often used in economic
evaluation to inform priority setting in health care, the
EQ-5D index values are also useful as single index
measures in clinical studies as well as in population
health surveys.
After extensive research and preparation, the
EuroQol Group launched the EQ-5D-5L self-complete
version in 2009, with the aim of further improving the
sensitivity and discriminatory power of the existing
EQ-5D-3L version. The EQ-5D-5L (EQ-5D 5 level) is
available in more than 100 translated versions. The
EQ-5D-5L still consists of two pages – the EQ-5D-5L
descriptive system (page 2) and the EQ visual
Analogue scale (EQ VAS) (page 3). The descriptive
system comprises the same five dimensions as the
EQ-5D-3L. However, each dimension now has five
levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate
problems, severe problems, and extreme
problems/unable.
The EQ-5D-Y (EQ-5D Youth version) is an EQ-5D-
3L self complete version for children and adolescents
aged 7–12. It is available in more than 25 languages.
All analyses and results in this book, however, are
based on adult EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS data.
References
EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – A new facility for the
measurement of health-related quality of life. Health
Policy 16:199–208
[CrossRef]
Szende A (Editor) and Williams A (Editor) (2004)
Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An
International Perspective based on EQ-5D. EuroQol
Group.
© The Author(s) 2014
Agota Szende, Bas Janssen and Juan Cabases (eds.), Self-Reported Population Health: An
International Perspective based on EQ-5D, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1_2
(1) Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
(2) EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
(3) Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Covance, Leeds, UK
Agota Szende
Email: [email protected]
Table 2.2 Coefficients for the estimation of the EQ-5D index values based on TTO
valuation studies
Country Source Model MAD Constant MO2 MO3 SC2 SC3 UA2 UA3 PD2 PD
Argentina Augustovski OLS 0.039 −0.189 −0.272 −0.128 −0.209 −0.111 −0.067 −0.130 −0
2009
Country Source Model MAD Constant MO2 MO3 SC2 SC3 UA2 UA3 PD2 PD
Denmark Wittrup- RE 0.089 −0.114 −0.053 −0.411 −0.063 −0.192 −0.048 −0.144 −0.062 −0
Jensen
2002
France Chevalier RE 0.043 −0.155 −0.372 −0.212 −0.326 −0.156 −0.189 −0.112 −0
2011
Germany Greiner RE 0.047 −0.001 −0.099 −0.327 −0.087 −0.174 −0.112 −0
2005
Italy Scalone RE 0.030 −0.076 −0.518 −0.100 −0.289 −0.085 −0.198 −0.098 −0
2013
Japan Tsuchiya OLS 0.015 −0.152 −0.075 −0.418 −0.054 −0.102 −0.044 −0.133 −0.080 −0
2002
Korea Lee 2009 OLS 0.029 −0.050 −0.418 −0.046 −0.136 −0.051 −0.208 −0.037 −0.151 −0
Netherlands Lamers RE 0.030 −0.071 −0.036 −0.161 −0.082 −0.152 −0.032 −0.057 −0.086 −0
2006
Spain Badia 2001 RE NR −0.024 −0.106 −0.430 −0.134 −0.309 −0.071 −0.195 −0.089 −0
Thailand Tongsiri RE 0.080 −0.202 −0.121 −0.432 −0.121 −0.242 −0.059 −0.118 −0.072 −0
2011
United MVH Group RE 0.039 −0.081 −0.069 −0.314 −0.104 −0.214 −0.036 −0.094 −0.123 −0
Kingdom 1995
United Shaw 2005 RE 0.025 −0.146 −0.558 −0.175 −0.471 −0.140 −0.374 −0.173 −0
States
Zimbabwe Jelsma RE 0.049 −0.100 −0.056 −0.204 −0.092 −0.231 −0.043 −0.135 −0.067 −0
2003
MO2 = 1 if mobility is at level 2; MO3 = 1 if mobility is at level 3. SC2 = 1 if self-
care is at level 2; SC3 = 1 if self-care is at level 3. UA2 = 1 if usual activities is at
level 2; UA3 = 1 if usual activities is at level 3. PD2 = 1 if pain/discomfort is at level
2; PD3 = if pain/discomfort is at level 3. AD2 = 1 if anxiety/depression is at level 2;
AD3 = 1 if anxiety/depression is at level 3. N3 = 1 if any dimension is at level 3, D1
= additional number of dimensions at either level 2 or level 3; I2 = number of
dimensions at level 2 beyond the first; I3 = number of dimensions at level 3 beyond
the first; O2 = 1 if all dimensions at level 1 and level 2; O3 = 1 if all dimensions at
level 1 and level 3; Z2 = 1 if at least one dimension at level 2 and one dimension at
level 3; Z3 = number of dimensions at level 2 given at least one dimension at level 3;
C2 = number of dimensions at level 2; C3 = number of dimensions at level 3; MAD=
mean absolute difference; OLS = ordinary least squares; RE = random
Country-specific VAS value set if available. Note that the Visual Analogue
Scale (VAS) has become the other widely used method to elicit preferences
for the EQ-5D, including nine countries. Table 2.3 summarizes countries that
have their own VAS based value sets and describes the value sets, including
the European value set.
Table 2.3 Coefficients for the estimation of the EQ-5D index values based on VAS
valuation studies
Country Source Model MAD Constant MO2 MO3 SC2 SC3 UA2 UA3 PD2 PD3
Argentina Augustovski OLS 0.020 −0.248 −0.247 −0.184 −0.178 −0.209 −0.148 −0.185 −0.1
2009
Belgium Cleemput RE 0.036 −0.152 −0.074 −0.148 −0.083 −0.166 −0.031 −0.062 −0.084 −0.1
2004
Denmark Wittrup- RE NR −0.225 −0.126 −0.252 −0.112 −0.224 −0.064 −0.128 −0.078 −0.1
Jensen
2002
Europea Greiner RE 0.030 −0.128 −0.066 −0.183 −0.117 −0.156 −0.026 −0.086 −0.093 −0.1
2003
Country Source Model MAD Constant MO2 MO3 SC2 SC3 UA2 UA3 PD2 PD3
Finland Ohinmaa OLS NR −0.158 −0.058 −0.230 −0.098 −0.143 −0.047 −0.131 −0.111 −0.1
1995
Germanyb Claes 1999 RE 0.036 0.926 0.945 0.393 0.808 0.470 0.880 0.554 0.975 0.46
New Devlin 2000 RE 0.041 −0.204 −0.075 −0.150 −0.071 −0.142 −0.014 −0.028 −0.080 −0.1
Zealand
Slovenia Prevolnik OLS NR −0.128 −0.206 −0.412 −0.093 −0.186 −0.054 −0.108 −0.111 −0.2
Rupel 2000
Spain Badia 1998 OLS NR −0.150 −0.090 −0.179 −0.101 −0.202 −0.055 −0.110 −0.060 −0.1
United MVH Group RE NR −0.155 −0.071 −0.182 −0.093 −0.145 −0.031 −0.081 −0.084 −0.1
Kingdom 1995
a These values have been rescaled with the mean value of dead
b TheGerman model is a multiplicative model. This implies that when any of the
dimensions is at level 1 the appropriate coefficient for that dimension is 1
MO2 = 1 if mobility is at level 2, 0 otherwise; MO3 = 1 if mobility is at level 3,
0 otherwise. SC2 = 1 if self-care is at level 2, 0 otherwise; SC3 = 1 if self-care is at
level 3, 0 otherwise. UA2 = 1 if usual activities is at level 2, 0 otherwise; UA3 = 1 if
usual activities is at level 3, 0 otherwise. PD2 = 1 if pain/discomfort is at level 2, 0
otherwise; PD3 = if pain/discomfort is at level 3, 0 otherwise. AD2 = 1 if
anxiety/depression is at level 2, 0 otherwise; AD3 = 1 if anxiety/depression is at level
3, 0 otherwise. N1 = 1 if any dimension is at either level 2 or level 3, 0 otherwise; N3
= 1 if any dimension is at level 3, 0 otherwise; O2 = 1 if all dimensions at level 1 and
level 2, 0 otherwise; O3 = 1 if all dimensions at level 1 and level 3, 0 otherwise; Z2
= 1 if at least one dimension at level 2 and one dimension at level 3, 0 otherwise; Z3
= number of dimensions at level 2 given at least one dimension at level 3; C2 =
number of dimensions at level 2; C3 = number of dimensions at level 3. GLIM =
generalized linear model; MAD = mean absolute difference; NR = not reported; OLS
= ordinary least squares; RE = random effects model
This means that for countries with no available value set from their own
general population, only the European VAS value set based EQ-5D index values
are summarised. However, for countries with available TTO and/or VAS value
sets, additional population norms of EQ-5D index values are calculated.
To summarize key results on reported problems, EQ VAS, and EQ-5D index
values, countries are tabulated in alphabetic order and are not ranked. Detailed
country-by-country results are provided in the appendices. Because the
population norms data are presented by age and gender, there is no need for the
sample to have the same age distribution as the general population in each
country. Therefore the data that are presented in the tables have not been
standardized for age or gender. This means that international comparisons
across several age groups should be made with caution as the demographic
build-up by age and gender varies between countries, and that the samples of
the general population used to create the tables do not necessarily follow that
same distribution. However, international comparisons of data contained in a
single cell (i.e. 1 age and gender group) are valid. The following section describes
the methodology used to analyse cross-country differences in EQ-5D population
data.
Source: Macro indicators for each country were obtained from the World Bank (www.
worldbank.org) Physician per 1,000 population data were obtained from the World
Health Organization Statistical Information System (www.who.int)
aData availability for last year varies in some countries
For all correlation analyses, non-parametric Spearman rank correlations were
calculated. For this calculation, countries were ranked based on mean self-
assessed health results, and their living standards and health care system
performance characteristics. A high rank correlation means that the ranking of
countries on one variable (e.g. prevalence of self-reported health problems) is
similar to the ranking of another variable (e.g. GDP per capita).
2.4 Methods of Sociodemographic Analysis of EQ-5D Data
Two main approaches were used to derive socio-demographic indicators based
on EQ-5D, based on odds ratios and concentration indices.
Logistic regression age-adjusted odds ratios for reporting problems on each
EQ-5D dimension were calculated by age groups, gender, and education. An
odds ratio higher than 1 indicates that the examined group reported more health
problems than the reference group. The reference group was males, 18–24 years,
with medium/high education.
Secondly, the analysis used the concentration index method, which is a single
index measure of relative inequalities (Wagstaff et al. 1991; Kakwani et al. 1997).
The overall health concentration index measures the mean difference in health
between individuals as a proportion of the average health of the total population.
This index can also be interpreted as a measure of how unequal the distribution
of health is in the population. Health inequality is measured on a scale between 0
(meaning complete equality in health) and 1 (meaning complete inequality in
health). Researchers also showed that the concentration index value also
corresponds to 75 % of the Schutz index, and as such, it can also be interpreted
as the proportion of health that should be redistributed from those above the
average level to those below the average in order to equalize the distribution of
health. (Koolman and Doorslaer 2004).
The overall concentration index can be decomposed to identify the impact of
various factors, such as socio-demographic or quality of life characteristics, in
order to determine how much each factor contributes to inequalities (Wagstaff
and Doorslaer 2004; Clarke et al. 2010). In the current analysis, overall self-
reported health was measured by the EQ VAS. Decomposition analysis was
performed to determine inequalities by socio-demographic factors and by the
EQ-5D dimensions, as well as in a combined model in which both socio-
demographic and EQ-5D dimension variables were included.
The health concentration index for overall self-reported health, as measured
by the EQ VAS, was computed by the convenient regression model as proposed
by Kakwani et al. (1997):
where R i is the relative fractional rank of the ith individual (ranked by the
individual’s EQ VAS health), and γk is the estimated concentration index.
For the purposes of the decomposition analysis, the same estimation is used
for all explanatory variables (by replacing EQ VAS with the explanatory variable
in the equation and also using this variable for ranking purposes).
The total health concentration index can be written as the weighted sum of the
concentration indices of the explanatory variables and the generalized
concentration index of ε:
where the weights are equal to the elasticities of EQ VAS score with respect to
each explanatory variable in the model:
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
References
Augustovski FA, Irazola VE, Velazquez AP, Gibbons L, Craig BM (2009) Argentine
valuation of the EQ-5D health states. Value Health 12(4):587–596
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Badia X et al (1998) The Spanish VAS tariff based on valuation of EQ-5D health states
from the general population. In: Rabin RE et al (eds) EuroQol plenary meeting,
Rotterdam, 2–3 Oct 1997. Discussion papers. Centre for Health Policy & Law, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, pp 93–114
Bjork S, Norinder A (1999) The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the
EuroQol. Health Econ 8(2):117–126
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Tongsiri S, Cairns J (2011) Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states
in Thailand. Value Health 14(8):1142–1145
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Canary Health Survey (2009) Canary Islands health service and ISTAC
Catalunya Health Survey (2011) Health plan service. Department of Health, Government
of Catalonia
Claes C et al (1999) An interview-based comparison of the TTO and VAS values given
to EuroQol states of health by the general German population. In: Greiner W,
Schulenburg J-M. Graf v.d. et al (eds) EQ plenary meeting, Hannover, 1–2 Oct 1998.
Discussion papers, pp 13–39
Cleemput I et al (2004) Re-scaling social preference data: implications for modelling. In:
Kind P, Macran S (eds) Proceedings of the 19th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group
2002. York Centre for Health Economics, pp 113–122
Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–
108
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams A (2000) The health state preferences and logical
inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs. York Centre for Health
Economics/University of Otago, New Zealand. Discussion paper no 180
Greiner W et al (2003) A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set. In: Brooks R et al (eds)
The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective.
Kluwer, Dordrecht
Health Quality Council Alberta (HQCA) (2010) Satisfaction and Experience with Health
Care Services: A Survey with Albertans in 2010
Kakwani NC, Wagstaff A, Doorsaler EV (1997) Socioeconomic inequalities in health:
measurement, computation and statistical inference. Journal of Econometrics 77:87–103
[CrossRef]
Clarke P, van Ourti T (2010) Calculating the concentration index when income is
grouped. J Health Econ 29(1):151–157
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, Kind P, Kweon SS, Kim
YT (2009) South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with
observed values for 101 health states. Value Health 12(8):1187–1193
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, Krabbe PFM, Busschbach JJV (2006) The
Dutch tariff: results and arguments for a cost-effective design for national EQ-5D
valuation studies. Health Econ 15(10):1121–1132
[PubMed][CrossRef]
MVH Group (1995) The Measurement and Valuation of Health. Final report on the
modelling of valuation tariffs. York: MVH Group, Centre for Health Economics, York.
Ohinmaa A et al (1996) Modelling EuroQol values of Finnish adult population. In: Badia
X et al (eds) EuroQol plenary meeting 1995 discussion papers. Institut Universitari de
Salut Publica de Catalunya, Barcelona, pp 67–76. ISBN: 84-477-0574-9
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states:
development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43(3):203–220
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Szende A (Editor), Oppe M (Editor), Devlin N (Editor) (2007) EQ-5D Value Sets:
Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. (EuroQol Group Monographs).
Springer.
Wittrup-Jensen KU et al (2002) Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using TTO and VAS.
In: Norinder A et al (eds) Proceedings of the 18th plenary meeting of the EuroQol
Group, Copenhagen, 2001. IHE, The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, pp 257–
292
Yfantopoulos Y (1999). Quality of life measurment and health production in Greece. In:
Greiner W, J-M. Graf v.d. Schulenburg, Piercy J. (Editors). (EuroQol) Plenary Meeting.
Discussion Papers. Hannover Uni-Verlag Witte: 100–114.
© The Author(s) 2014
Agota Szende, Bas Janssen and Juan Cabases (eds.), Self-Reported
Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1_3
Agota Szende
Email: [email protected]
Bas Janssen
Email: [email protected]
Bas Janssen
Email: [email protected]
Table 5.1 Odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for reporting problems on EQ-5D-3L
dimensions in 19 countries
Country Dimension Gender 95 % CI Age 95 % CI Edu 95 % CI
Belgium Mobility 1.37 0.98 1.91 1.64 1.46 1.84 1.05 0.70 1.58
Self-care 1.37 0.91 2.07 1.63 1.30 2.03 0.91 0.53 1.56
Usual activities 1.47 1.13 1.91 1.50 1.33 1.68 1.17 0.83 1.65
Pain/discomfort 1.31 1.05 1.63 1.31 1.22 1.42 1.19 0.88 1.63
Anxiety/depression 1.63 1.04 2.55 1.05 0.93 1.20 1.04 0.60 1.82
China Mobility 1.18 0.95 1.45 1.71 1.58 1.84 1.89 1.46 2.46
Self-care 1.08 0.82 1.42 1.53 1.39 1.68 1.71 1.23 2.38
Usual activities 1.20 0.97 1.48 1.55 1.44 1.67 2.47 1.89 3.23
Pain/discomfort 1.67 1.43 1.95 1.55 1.47 1.63 1.54 1.29 1.83
Anxiety/depression 1.19 1.01 1.40 1.23 1.17 1.30 2.36 1.95 2.86
Denmark Mobility 1.25 1.12 1.38 1.41 1.37 1.45 1.82 1.62 2.04
Self-care 1.25 1.02 1.53 1.51 1.42 1.59 1.89 1.49 2.40
Usual activities 1.48 1.36 1.61 1.28 1.25 1.31 1.62 1.48 1.76
Pain/discomfort 1.41 1.32 1.51 1.17 1.15 1.20 1.41 1.32 1.51
Anxiety/depression 1.68 1.54 1.83 1.06 1.04 1.09 1.33 1.22 1.46
England Mobility 1.22 1.11 1.35 1.65 1.59 1.70 2.17 1.95 2.41
Self-care 1.19 1.02 1.40 1.47 1.40 1.55 2.33 1.95 2.79
Usual activities 1.28 1.16 1.41 1.47 1.43 1.52 2.04 1.82 2.27
Pain/discomfort 1.16 1.08 1.26 1.39 1.36 1.43 1.72 1.57 1.88
Anxiety/depression 1.52 1.39 1.67 1.03 1.00 1.06 1.52 1.37 1.68
Country Dimension Gender 95 % CI Age 95 % CI Edu 95 % CI
Finland Mobility 1.04 0.91 1.18 2.17 2.06 2.28 1.89 1.65 2.16
Self-care 0.96 0.80 1.15 2.24 2.08 2.41 1.78 1.46 2.17
Usual activities 1.17 1.02 1.34 1.92 1.83 2.02 1.82 1.57 2.10
Pain/discomfort 1.32 1.19 1.46 1.46 1.40 1.52 1.62 1.44 1.81
Anxiety/depression 1.26 1.08 1.46 1.16 1.10 1.22 1.50 1.28 1.77
France Mobility 1.63 1.22 2.17 1.91 1.73 2.10 1.36 0.97 1.89
Self-care 0.94 0.59 1.49 1.68 1.43 1.99 1.51 0.86 2.65
Usual activities 1.22 0.89 1.66 1.54 1.38 1.72 1.29 0.89 1.88
Pain/discomfort 1.19 0.98 1.44 1.39 1.30 1.48 1.20 0.97 1.49
Anxiety/depression 1.16 0.90 1.49 1.01 0.93 1.09 0.93 0.71 1.22
Germany Mobility 1.18 0.96 1.46 1.92 1.79 2.06 1.89 1.16 3.09
Self-Care 1.47 0.90 2.39 2.17 1.84 2.57 1.91 1.00 3.67
Usual activities 1.22 0.93 1.59 1.69 1.54 1.86 1.96 1.25 3.08
Pain/discomfort 1.36 1.15 1.60 1.38 1.28 1.48 1.59 0.99 2.56
Anxiety/depression 1.43 0.98 2.07 1.04 0.90 1.19 1.79 0.82 3.91
Greece Mobility 1.34 0.71 2.53 1.93 1.54 2.42 2.13 1.06 4.29
Self-care 4.76 1.75 13.01 2.58 1.76 3.78 1.54 0.55 4.33
Usual activities 1.95 0.93 4.11 2.52 1.86 3.40 2.22 0.96 5.14
Pain/discomfort 1.83 1.04 3.20 1.59 1.32 1.92 3.03 1.62 5.68
Anxiety/depression 1.27 0.66 2.43 1.19 0.96 1.47 3.79 1.71 8.36
Hungary Mobility 1.17 1.00 1.37 1.80 1.71 1.89 2.00 1.70 2.35
Self-care 0.84 0.66 1.08 1.84 1.69 2.00 2.61 2.00 3.40
Usual activities 1.02 0.86 1.21 1.64 1.56 1.73 2.35 1.97 2.80
Pain/discomfort 1.45 1.28 1.64 1.48 1.43 1.54 1.95 1.71 2.23
Anxiety/depression 1.71 1.51 1.93 1.24 1.20 1.29 1.98 1.74 2.26
Italy Mobility 1.44 1.15 1.79 2.25 2.07 2.45 1.78 1.30 2.43
Self-care 1.94 1.39 2.70 2.16 1.88 2.48 1.81 1.12 2.91
Usual activities 1.77 1.41 2.20 1.91 1.76 2.07 2.00 1.46 2.75
Pain/discomfort 1.74 1.50 2.02 1.53 1.46 1.60 1.47 1.24 1.75
Anxiety/depression 2.26 1.81 2.81 1.25 1.17 1.35 1.20 0.90 1.59
Korea Mobility 2.40 1.37 4.22 1.66 1.29 2.15 3.56 1.81 7.03
Self-care 6.53 0.77 55.11 3.52 1.44 8.64 3.34 0.31 35.97
Usual activities 1.67 0.87 3.20 1.60 1.17 2.18 6.72 2.77 16.27
Pain/discomfort 1.73 1.28 2.34 1.63 1.42 1.86 2.51 1.70 3.71
Anxiety/depression 2.05 1.51 2.80 1.31 1.14 1.49 1.42 0.93 2.16
Netherlands Mobility 1.60 1.12 2.29 1.53 1.37 1.70 1.38 0.95 2.01
Self-care 2.93 1.60 5.39 1.36 1.07 1.72 1.08 0.55 2.13
Usual activities 1.97 1.43 2.71 1.30 1.19 1.42 1.14 0.82 1.60
Pain/discomfort 1.42 1.13 1.78 1.22 1.13 1.31 1.06 0.84 1.35
Anxiety/depression 2.12 1.08 4.15 0.80 0.63 1.01 2.41 1.07 5.46
Country Dimension Gender 95 % CI Age 95 % CI Edu 95 % CI
New Zealand Mobility 1.04 0.77 1.40 1.75 1.58 1.93 1.26 0.92 1.73
Self-care 0.77 0.45 1.33 1.76 1.46 2.13 1.28 0.73 2.25
Usual activities 1.11 0.83 1.47 1.58 1.44 1.73 1.09 0.80 1.48
Pain/discomfort 1.08 0.86 1.37 1.45 1.34 1.56 1.29 0.99 1.68
Anxiety/depression 1.43 1.08 1.89 1.11 1.02 1.21 1.27 0.94 1.71
Slovenia Mobility 0.70 0.48 1.02 1.95 1.72 2.20 4.48 2.64 7.58
Self-care 0.87 0.54 1.39 1.67 1.45 1.93 3.89 2.30 6.58
Usual activities 0.93 0.66 1.31 1.51 1.37 1.68 3.29 2.04 5.31
Pain/discomfort 1.04 0.76 1.43 1.52 1.37 1.67 2.30 1.39 3.81
Anxiety/depression 1.13 0.83 1.54 1.16 1.06 1.27 1.66 1.06 2.59
Spain Mobility 1.61 1.30 2.00 1.91 1.78 2.06 1.46 1.10 1.96
Self-care 2.02 1.36 3.01 1.79 1.58 2.03 2.12 1.20 3.74
Usual activities 1.76 1.39 2.24 1.63 1.51 1.75 1.37 1.01 1.88
Pain/discomfort 1.71 1.43 2.05 1.34 1.28 1.41 1.41 1.15 1.73
Anxiety/depression 1.86 1.41 2.46 1.15 1.08 1.23 1.48 1.10 2.01
Sweden Mobility 1.37 0.71 2.61 1.68 1.34 2.11 1.36 0.67 2.75
Self-care 3.06 0.60 15.69 1.39 0.83 2.32 11.63 1.24 109.0
Usual activities 0.97 0.51 1.87 1.27 1.03 1.57 1.58 0.77 3.26
Pain/discomfort 1.11 0.77 1.62 1.26 1.12 1.42 2.05 1.33 3.16
Anxiety/depression 1.74 1.16 2.63 0.94 0.83 1.07 1.41 0.87 2.28
Thailanda Mobility 1.30 1.01 1.67 1.57 1.42 1.72 – – –
Self-care 0.93 0.64 1.36 1.40 1.22 1.61 – – –
Usual activities 0.97 0.75 1.24 1.22 1.11 1.34 – – –
Pain/discomfort 1.37 1.09 1.71 1.31 1.20 1.43 – – –
Anxiety/depression 1.44 1.17 1.79 1.14 1.05 1.23 – – –
United Kingdom Mobility 0.90 0.75 1.09 1.65 1.56 1.76 1.68 1.37 2.06
Self-care 0.80 0.57 1.13 1.45 1.30 1.62 1.85 1.26 2.71
Usual activities 0.88 0.72 1.07 1.40 1.32 1.48 1.56 1.27 1.92
Pain/discomfort 1.02 0.87 1.19 1.39 1.33 1.46 1.77 1.50 2.09
Anxiety/depression 1.35 1.14 1.61 1.13 1.07 1.18 1.52 1.26 1.82
United States Mobility 1.25 1.17 1.34 1.73 1.70 1.77 1.96 1.80 2.14
Self-care 1.04 0.93 1.16 1.61 1.55 1.68 2.33 2.06 2.63
Usual activities 1.43 1.35 1.52 1.54 1.51 1.57 1.84 1.69 2.01
Pain/discomfort 1.30 1.24 1.37 1.46 1.43 1.48 1.45 1.35 1.57
Anxiety/depression 1.49 1.42 1.57 1.12 1.10 1.14 1.42 1.33 1.51
5.4 Conclusions
Evidence from these analyses shows that inequalities in self-reported health
measured by the EQ-5D exist across many countries despite different
demographic, economic and cultural characteristics. The individual health
inequality profile of each country deserves the attention of policy makers to
promote greater equity.
Both the analysis of odds ratios and concentration indices showed that age is
the most important overall predictor of experiencing lower EQ VAS and problems
on mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort in all countries. Gender
does play an additional role, although its role is much smaller. Having attained at
least a medium level of education, adjusted for age and gender, translated into
lower odds of reporting problems on any dimension of EQ-5D in almost all
surveyed countries. However, this relationship seemed to possess some country-
specific traits that deserve the attention of policy makers.
In addition, the decomposition analysis of the concentration index provided a
unique insight into the role of each individual EQ-5D dimension in explaining
overall inequalities in EQ VAS. This analysis, in particular, highlighted the
widespread importance of problems with pain/discomfort and usual activities in
explaining inequalities in overall self-assessed health.
Finally, it has to be noted that the above results should not be used for
ranking countries based on health inequality among their populations. Neither
was the analysis designed to account for potential differences in demographic or
other sample characteristics across countries. Each country should consider the
results within the light of their own social and health care context. Further data
collection and research by population subgroups that were not included in this
study – such as social, ethnic, or patient groups – could help prioritize and further
refine inequality reduction programs.
Another limitation of this study derives from the simple, generic nature of the
EQ-5D questionnaire. The domains described by the EQ-5D-3L are generic and
response options are limited to three levels. While these characteristics make the
EQ-5D feasible to administer in large population surveys, they also lead to some
limitations in interpreting results. For example, it is not possible to determine what
proportion of reported pain related to acute, sub-acute, or chronic pain, or what
were the key types of usual activities people had problem with. Targeted research
along each important quality of life domain could further help understand in-depth
characteristics of inequalities and identify strategies to tackle them efficiently.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
References
Blakely T, Woodward A, Pearce N, Salmond C, Kiro C, Davis P (2002) Socio-economic
factors and mortality among 25–64 year olds followed from 1991 to 1994: the New
Zealand Census-Mortality Study. N Z Med J 115:93–97
[PubMed]
Dalstra JAA, Kunst AE, Geurts JJM, Frenken FJM, Mackenbach JP (2002) Trends in
socioeconomic health inequalities in the Netherlands, 1981–1999. J Epidemiol
Community Health 56:927–934
[PubMedCentral][PubMed][CrossRef]
Eachus J, Chan P, Pearson N, Propper C, Smith GD (1999) An additional dimension to
health inequalities: disease severity and socio-economic position. J Epidemiol
Community Health 53:603–611
[PubMedCentral][PubMed][CrossRef]
Goldman DP, Smith JP (2002) Can patient self-management help explain the SES health
gradient? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99:10929–
10934
[PubMedCentral][PubMed][CrossRef]
Karter AJ, Ferrara A, Darbinian JA, Ackerson LM, Selby JV (2000) Self-Monitoring of
Blood Glucose: Language and financial barriers in a managed care population with
diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:477–483
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Katz PP (1998) Education and self-care activities among persons with rheumatoid
arthritis. Soc Sci Med 46:1057–1066
[PubMed][CrossRef]
Kunst AE, Geurts JJM, van de Berg J (1995) International variation in socio-economic
inequalities in self reported health. J Epidemiol Community Health 49:117–23
[PubMedCentral][PubMed][CrossRef]
Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE, Cavelaars AEJM, Groenhof F, Geurts JJM (1997) EU
Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Socioeconomic inequalities in
morbidity and mortality in western Europe. The Lancet 349:1655–1659
[CrossRef]
Simon JG (2002) How is your health in general? Qualitative and quantitative studies on
self-assessed health and socioeconomic differences herein [thesis]. Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Finland
Source: HEALTH (2000), Aromaa and Koskinen (2004)
Number of respondents
Germany
Source: ESEMeD; König et al. ( 2009 )
Number of respondents
Italy
Source: ESEMeD; König et al. ( 2009 )
Number of respondents
Korea
Source: Lee et al. ( 2009 )
Number of respondents
Age 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+ Total
Total 142 256 353 268 184 99 5 1,307
Males 69 138 174 132 81 44 3 641
Females 73 118 179 136 103 55 2 666
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
Netherlands
Source: ESEMeD; König et al. ( 2009 )
Number of respondents
Spain
Source: ESEMeD; König et al. ( 2009 )
Number of respondents
Canada (Alberta)
Source: Johnson et al. (2000)
Number of respondents
Zimbabwe (Harare)
Source: Jelsma (2003)
Number of respondents
References
Augustovski FA, Irazola VE, Velazquez AP, Gibbons L, Craig BM (2009) Argentine
valuation of the EQ-5D health states. Value Health 12(4):587–596
Badia X et al (1998) The Spanish VAS tariff based on valuation of EQ-5D health states
from the general population. In: Rabin RE et al (eds) EuroQol plenary meeting,
Rotterdam, 2–3 Oct 1997. Discussion papers. Centre for Health Policy & Law, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, pp 93–114
Bjork S, Norinder A (1999) The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the
EuroQol. Health Econ 8(2):117–126
Canary Health Survey (2009) Canary Islands health service and ISTAC
Claes C et al (1999a) An interview-based comparison of the TTO and VAS values given
to EuroQol states of health by the general German population. In: Greiner W,
Schulenburg J-M. Graf v.d. et al (eds) EQ plenary meeting, Hannover, 1–2 Oct 1998.
Discussion papers, pp 13–39
Clarke P, van Ourti T (2010) Calculating the concentration index when income is
grouped. J Health Econ 29(1):151–157
Dalstra JAA, Kunst AE, Geurts JJM, Frenken FJM, Mackenbach JP (2002) Trends in
socioeconomic health inequalities in the Netherlands, 1981–1999. J Epidemiol
Community Health 56:927–934
Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams A (2000) The health state preferences and logical
inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs. York Centre for Health
Economics/University of Otago, New Zealand. Discussion paper no 180
Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–
1108
Eachus J, Chan P, Pearson N, Propper C, Smith GD (1999) An additional dimension to
health inequalities: disease severity and socio-economic position. J Epidemiol
Community Health 53:603–611
EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related
quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208
Gaminde I, Cabasés J (1996) Measuring valuations for health states among the general
population in Navarra (Spain). In: Badia X, Herdman M, Segura A (eds) EuroQol
plenary meeting. Discussion papers. Institut Universitari de Salut Publica de Catalunya,
Barcelona, pp 113–123
Goldman DP, Smith JP (2002) Can patient self-management help explain the SES health
gradient? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:10929–10934
Greiner W, The Rotterdam Analysis Team (2003) A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set.
Chapter 8. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, Charro F (eds) The measurement and valuation of
health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Greiner W et al (2003) A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set. In: Brooks R et al (eds)
The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective.
Kluwer, Dordrecht
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM (2005) Validating the EQ-
5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 6(2):124–130
Health Quality Council Alberta (HQCA) (2010) Satisfaction and experience with health
care services: a survey with Albertans in 2010
Johnson JA, Pickard AS (2000) Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in
a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 38(1):115–121
Kakwani NC, Wagstaff A, Doorsaler EV (1997) Socioeconomic inequalities in health:
measurement, computation and statistical inference. J Economet 77:87–103
Karter AJ, Ferrara A, Darbinian JA, Ackerson LM, Selby JV (2000) Self-monitoring of
blood glucose: language and financial barriers in a managed care population with
diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:477–483
Katz PP (1998) Education and self-care activities among persons with rheumatoid
arthritis. Soc Sci Med 46:1057–1066
Kunst AE, Geurts JJM, van de Berg J (1995) International variation in socio-economic
inequalities in self reported health. J Epidemiol Community Health 49:117–123
Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, Krabbe PFM, Busschbach JJV (2006) The
Dutch tariff: results and arguments for a cost-effective design for national EQ-5D
valuation studies. Health Econ 15(10):1121–1132
Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, Kind P, Kweon SS, Kim
YT (2009) South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with
observed values for 101 health states. Value Health 12(8):1187–1193
Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE, Cavelaars AEJM, Groenhof F, Geurts JJM (1997) EU
working group on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Socioeconomic inequalities in
morbidity and mortality in western Europe. Lancet 349:1655–1659
MVH Group (1995) The measurement and valuation of health. Final report on the
modelling of valuation tariffs. MVH Group, Centre for Health Economics, York
National Centre for Social Research and University College London. Department of
Epidemiology and Public Health (2011) Health survey for England, 2008 [computer
file], 3rd edn. UK Data Archive [distributor], Colchester, July 2011. SN: 6397, http://dx.
doi.org/test
Prevolnik Rupel V, Rebolj M (2001) The Slovenian VAS tariff based on valuations of
EQ-5D health states from the general population. In: Cabasés J, Gaminde I (eds) 17th
plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group. Discussion papers. Universidad Pública de
Navarra, pp 11–23
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states:
development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43(3):203–220
Simon JG (2002) How is your health in general? Qualitative and quantitative studies on
self-assessed health and socioeconomic differences herein [thesis]. Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N (eds) (2007) EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative
review and user guide. (EuroQol Group monographs). Springer
Tongsiri S, Cairns J (2011) Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states
in Thailand. Value Health 14(8):1142–1145
Wittrup-Jensen KU et al (2002) Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using TTO and VAS.
In: Norinder A et al (eds) Proceedings of the 18th plenary meeting of the EuroQol
Group, Copenhagen, 2001. IHE, The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, pp 257–
292
Yfantopoulos Y (1999) Quality of life measurment and health production in Greece. In:
Greiner W, Schulenburg J-M. Graf v.d., Piercy J (eds) (EuroQol) Plenary meeting.
Discussion papers. Uni-Verlag Witte, Hannover, pp 100–114
Index
A
Augustovski, F.A
B
Badia, X.
Björk, S.
C
Claes, C.
Cleemput, I.
Cross-country analysis
economic and health care indicators
economic and health system macro indicators
EQ-5D data
European population age structure
D
Decomposition analysis
Devlin, N.J.
E
EQ-5D
cross-country analysis
See ( see Cross-country analysis)
description
dimensions
EQ-5D index
EQ-5D 3 level
national surveys
See ( see National surveys)
population norms
See ( see EQ-5D population norms)
QALYs
regional surveys
See ( see Regional surveys)
sociodemographic analysis
socio-demographic indicator
See ( see Socio-demographic indicator)
youth version
EQ-5D database archive
Argentinean dataset
datasets, population surveys
description
standardized variables
EQ-5D dimensions and reported problems
with anxiety/depression
five dimensions
with mobility
with pain/discomfort
profile by country
regional surveys
with self-care
sum of proportion, level 2 and 3 problems
usual activities
EQ-5D index norms
concentration index method
country-specific TTO and VAS value sets
European VAS value set
value calculations
EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D 3 level)
EQ-5D-5L (EQ-5D 5 level)
EQ-5D population norms
age standardization
catalogue
description
dimensions
England and the Stockholm county survey
EQ VAS
index
index value calculations
national and regional surveys
TTO value sets
VAS value set
EQ-5D profile
EQ-5D value sets
TTO value set
VAS value set
EQ-5D-Y (EQ-5D Youth version)
EQ VAS.
See See EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS)
EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS)
health care expenditure
norms
age standardization, reported problems
health concentration index
‘lower values’, self-rated scores
mean population ratings
ratings, age group
regional surveys
self-rated scores
self-reported ratings
‘upper values’, self-rated scores
self-reported
Spearman rank correlation coefficients
EuroQol Group
EQ-5D
See ( see EQ-5D)
EQ-5D-5L self-complete version
Self-Reported Health Task Force
G
GDP.
See See Gross domestic product (GDP)
Gharagebakyan, G.
Greiner, W.
Gross domestic product (GDP)
and EQ VAS
health expenditure
H
Health care indicators
linear regression analyses
living standards
self-reported EQ VAS, GDP per capita
Spearman rank correlation coefficients
Health concentration index
education
inequality profile
quality of life dimensions
socio-demographic and quality of life dimensions
socio-demographic factors
smallest and higher proportions
Health-related quality of life
EQ-5D ratings
health care indicators, cross-country analysis
inequality profile
population norms, EQ-5D
See ( see EQ-5D population norms)
population surveys
See ( see EQ-5D population norms)
questionnaire
See ( see EQ-5D)
Health utilities
EQ-5D index values
population norm data
I
Inequalities
lowest level
pain/discomfort, self-assessed health
quality of life dimensions
socio-demographic and quality of life dimensions
socio-demographic factors
J
Jelsma, J.
Johnson, J.A.
K
Kakwani, N.C.
Kind, P.
L
Lamers, L.M
Lee, Y.K.
N
National surveys
Argentina
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Belgium
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
China
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Denmark
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
England
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Finland
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
France
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Germany
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Greece
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Hungary
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Italy
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Korea
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Netherlands
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
New Zealand
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Slovenia
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Spain
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Sweden
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Thailand
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
United Kingdom
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
United States
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Nemeth, R.
O
Odds ratio
EQ-5D-3L dimensions
gender related
P
Population norm data.
See See EQ-5D population norms
Prevolnik Rupel, V.
Q
QALYs.
See See Quality adjusted life years (QALYs)
Quality adjusted life years (QALYs)
Quality of life norms
R
Rebolj, M.
Regional surveys
Armenia
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Canada (Alberta)
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Japan
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Spain (Canary Islands)
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Spain (Catalonia)
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Sweden (Stockholm County)
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
Zimbabwe (Harare)
EQ-5D index values
EQ VAS (self-rated health)
number of respondents
problems reported by dimension
S
Saarni, S.I.
Scalone, L.
Self-Reported Health Task Force
Shaw, J.W
Socio-demographic indicator
concentration indices
Odds ratios
Sorensen, J.
Sullivan, P.W.
Sun, S.
Szende, A.
T
Time trade-off (TTO) value set
Tongsiri, S.
Tsuchiya, A.
TTO value set.
See See Time trade-off (TTO) value set
V
Visual analogue scale (VAS)
country-specific
EQ VAS
See ( see EQ visual Analogue scale (EQ VAS))
European VAS value set
W
Wittrup-Jensen, K.U.
Y
Yfantopoulous, Y.