Abstract
Various preference-based measures of health are available for use as an outcome measure in cost–utility analysis.
The aim of this study is to compare two such measures EQ-5D and SF-6D in mental health patients.
Baseline data from a Dutch multi-centre randomised trial of 616 patients with mood and/or anxiety disorders were
used. Mean and median EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities were compared, both in the total sample and between severity
subgroups based on quartiles of SCL-90 scores. Utilities were expected to decline with increased severity.
Both EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities differed significantly between patients of adjacent severity groups. Mean utilities
increased from 0.51 at baseline to 0.68 at 1.5 years follow-up for EQ-5D and from 0.58 to 0.70 for SF-6D. For all
severity subgroups, the mean change in EQ-5D utilities as well as in SF-6D utilities was statistically significant.
Standardised response means were higher for SF-6D utilities.
We concluded that both EQ-5D and SF-6D discriminated between severity subgroups and captured
improvements in health over time. However, the use of EQ-5D resulted in larger health gains and consequent
lower cost–utility ratios, especially for the subgroup with the highest severity of mental health problems.
The aim of this study is to compare two such measures EQ-5D and SF-6D in mental health patients.
Baseline data from a Dutch multi-centre randomised trial of 616 patients with mood and/or anxiety disorders were
used. Mean and median EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities were compared, both in the total sample and between severity
subgroups based on quartiles of SCL-90 scores. Utilities were expected to decline with increased severity.
Both EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities differed significantly between patients of adjacent severity groups. Mean utilities
increased from 0.51 at baseline to 0.68 at 1.5 years follow-up for EQ-5D and from 0.58 to 0.70 for SF-6D. For all
severity subgroups, the mean change in EQ-5D utilities as well as in SF-6D utilities was statistically significant.
Standardised response means were higher for SF-6D utilities.
We concluded that both EQ-5D and SF-6D discriminated between severity subgroups and captured
improvements in health over time. However, the use of EQ-5D resulted in larger health gains and consequent
lower cost–utility ratios, especially for the subgroup with the highest severity of mental health problems.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1229-1236 |
| Journal | Health Economics |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
