Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/50775
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTanita Thaweethamcharoenen_US
dc.contributor.authorPrapaporn Noparatayapornen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuchai Sritippayawanen_US
dc.contributor.authorNipa Aiyasanonen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T08:30:27Z-
dc.date.available2020-01-27T08:30:27Z-
dc.date.issued2019-05-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationValue in Health Regional Issues. Vol.18, (2019), 59-64en_US
dc.identifier.issn22121102en_US
dc.identifier.issn22121099en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85057290354en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/50775-
dc.description.abstract© 2018 Objectives: To compare the utility scores derived from the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), the visual analogue scale (VAS), and the 6-dimensional health state short form (SF-6D) in Thai patients on peritoneal dialysis. Methods: Data were obtained from the 36-Item Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire and the EuroQol questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L and VAS) via face-to-face interview for 64 patients on peritoneal dialysis. We compared the ceiling effect of all the utility tools by calculating the proportion at the highest scores. The mean difference in utility scores defined by patients’ demographic characteristics and clinical laboratory value was evaluated using independent t tests or the Mann-Whitney U test. Moreover, the correlation was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The agreements among the instruments were illustrated with the Bland and Altman plots. Results: The mean score of the EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, and VAS were 0.801, 0.784, and 0.733, respectively. The EQ-5D-5L presented a higher percentage of the ceiling effect than did the SF-6D and VAS. The EQ-5D-5L was able to distinguish the mean difference between age groups with significant difference (P<.001). The Pearson correlation coefficients between utility scores and the 3 dimensions of the 36-Item Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire had a significantly positive correlation, especially for the SF-6D. The Bland and Altman plots portrayed that the utility scores from the EQ-5D-5L were lower than those from the SF-6D and VAS among the patients in the poorer health state. Conclusions: Among the SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L, and VAS, only the EQ-5D-5L could distinguish the utility scores between different age groups. Nevertheless, the EQ-5D-5L presented the ceiling effect, whereas there was no evidence of the ceiling effect for the SF-6D. The SF-6D presented better correlation with the kidney disease–specific dimensions than did the EQ-5D-5L and VAS. Thus, the advantages and disadvantages of each utility tool should be considered.en_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85057290354&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectEconomics, Econometrics and Financeen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleComparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai Patients on Peritoneal Dialysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.vhri.2018.08.005en_US
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85057290354&origin=inwarden_US
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2019

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.