Rural population’s preferences matter: a value set for the EQ-5D-3L health states for China’s rural population

Abstract

Purpose To develop an EQ-5D-3L social value set based on Chinese rural population’s preferences using the time trade-off (TTO) method, and to compare the differences in preferences on health states between China urban and rural population. Methods Between Sep 2013 and Nov 2013, a total of 1201 participants were recruited from rural areas of five Chinese cities (Beijing, Chengdu, Guiyang, Nanjing, and Shenyang) using a quota sampling method. Each respondent valued 13 health states using the TTO, and a total of 97 EQ-5D-3L health states were directly valued for estimating the value set. Various models with different specifications were explored at both aggregate and individual levels. The final model was determined by a set of predefined selection criteria. Findings An ordinary least square model at the aggregate level included 10 dummy variables for specifying the level 2 and 3 for each dimension and an N3 term presenting any dimension on level 3 was selected as the final model. The final model provides a value set ranges from − 0.218 to 0.859. The predicted utility values were highly correlated with but consistently lower than that of the published Chinese EQ-5D-3L value set (for urban population). Conclusion The availability of the China rural value set provides a set of social preferences weights for researchers and policy decision-makers for use in China rural area.

Housing conditions, cooking fuels, and health-related quality of life among rural middle-aged and elderly in northwest China: A ten-year balanced panel study

“…This discrepancy may arise from several factors: firstly, our study focused on the middle-aged and elderly in rural northwest China, exhibiting cultural differences and distinct perspectives on health issues compared to other studied populations. Secondly, the EQ-5D-3L health state utility values we utilized were tailored to the preferences of the rural Chinese population in 2022 ( Liu et al, 2022 ). Lastly, our research results indicate that pain/discomfort is the most commonly reported issue by respondents, consistent with other studies ( Huang et al, 2017 , Yao et al, 2021 ).…”

“…( Chen et al, 2020 ). The EQ-5D-3L health utility value formula based on the preference setting of Chinese rural population was used for calculation ( Liu et al, 2022 ). Utility value = 1–0.053–0.100*MO2 − 0.261*MO3 − 0.104*SC2- 0.224*SC3 − 0.080*UA2 − 0.206*UA3 − 0.101*PD2 − 0.234*PD3 − 0.080*AD2 − 0.189*AD3 − 0.019*N3.…”

A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-3L index scores derived from the two EQ-5D-3L value sets for China

“…Also, the absolute utility score could also influence the QALY calculation to some extent. Hence, more empirical studies are warranted to further assess the impact in various settings in China.We also acknowledge a new 3L value set for China’s rural population developed by Liu et al has been available recently [ 38 ]. They also found that the utilty scores generated from the value set were generally lower than those of the two 3L value sets used in the current analysis.…”

A 1-year analysis from a natural history study in Chinese individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy

“…These responses were subsequently converted into a single index value ranging from 0 (death) to 1 (full health) using the specific Chinese value set. 22 , 23 An index value <0 was classified as a bad health status worse than death.…”