Taiwanese Version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a Representative Sample of the Taiwanese Population

Background/PurposeWe know of no validated Taiwanese-language instrument to measure a utility of the patient's health. Our aim was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a Taiwanese version of the EuroQol instrument (EQ-5D) in a Taiwanese population.MethodsQuestionnaires containing the Taiwanese versions of the EQ-5D and the Short-Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) were sent to 12,923 people in Taiwan in December 2002. Concurrent validity of the EQ-5D was analyzed by assuming that subjects with problems in any EQ-5D dimensions had decreased SF-12 scores. Discriminant validity of the EQ-5D was analyzed by assuming that subjects with the following characteristics had lowered EQ-5D indexes and scores on the EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS): more chronic diseases than others, serious illness, more hospitalizations in the past year than others, poor general health, and more outpatient visits than others. Test—retest reliability was analyzed in a subgroup of respondents who were evaluated twice within a month by using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the k method.ResultsThe general survey response rate was 12.7% (1644 of 12,923). SF-12 scores were lower in subjects reporting problems on EQ-5D dimensions than in others without such problems (p < 0.01). Subjects with more health problems than others had lower EQ-5D indexes and VAS scores (p < 0.01). The physical dimension of the EQ-5D was more strongly correlated with the SF-12 Physical Component Summary than with the Mental Component Summary; this finding satisfied the a priori hypothesis. For test—retest reliability of items on the EQ-5D, k values ranged from 0.49 to 1 (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe Taiwanese EQ-5D instrument appears to be a moderately valid and reliable tool for measuring the health status of the general population in Taiwan

Re-weighting the Quality of Well-Being Scale and assessment of self-reported health status in Chinese Americans.

Asian-Americans are the fastest growing ethnic minority group in the United States, followed by Hispanics. Little is known about their health state preferences or their health status. The purpose of this research was to determine whether a Chinese-American population has different preference values on four dimensions of health status than a general community sample in the United States. Also of interest was the self-reported health status of this sample of Chinese-Americans, using weights derived from Americans or Chinese-Americans to see whether the resulting index scores were significantly different. The question is whether Quality of Well-Being (QWB) weights derived from preferences of the American sample were appropriate for scoring QWBs for the Chinese-Americans. This research was conducted on 383 Chinese-Americans living in the San Gabriel Valley area, east of Los Angeles, California. A model of deliberate sampling for heterogeneity and a snowball sampling strategy were used for subjects' selection into the study. Three instruments (a weighting booklet, the Quality of Well-Being Scale, and a demographic battery), each having an English and a Chinese version, were used. Results indicate that the reliability and validity of the booklet rating and QWB Scale were high in the Chinese-American sample. The preference weights derived from the sample of Chinese-Americans were different from those derived from the community sample of Americans. Although the weights cannot be compared individually due to the lack of variance associated with them, of those 48 levels on the symptom/problems scale, 28 of the Chinese-American weights were lower than the American weights. For the 11 levels of the three functional scales, eight were higher than the American sample. The mean QWB scores calculated using Chinese-American weights were lower than those calculated using American weights. Therefore, QWB weights derived from preferences of the American sample were not appropriate for scoring QWBs for the Chinese-Americans

What Is Next for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Asia?

10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72330.xValue in Health72118-132VIHL

Health-care systems and pharmacoeconomic research in Asia-Pacific region

10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00378.xValue in Health11SUPPL. 1S137-S155VIHL