癌症患者健康效用测量方法介绍

刘博; 徐娟; Georg Kemmler; 李浩飞; 常恩雪; 郑万基; 谷文; 周澜; 刘瑞; 黄卫东; 罗南

doi:10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.04.13

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

癌症患者健康效用测量方法介绍

药物经济学 | 更新时间：2023-02-24

- 癌症患者健康效用测量方法介绍
- Introduction of measurement methods of health utility for cancer patients
- 中国药房 2023年34卷第4期页码：450-456
- 作者机构：
  
  1.哈尔滨医科大学卫生管理学院，哈尔滨　150081
  2.因斯布鲁克医科大学精神病学和心理治疗系，奥地利因斯布鲁克　6020
  3.新加坡国立大学苏瑞福公共卫生学院，新加坡　117549
- 作者简介：
  
  硕士研究生。研究方向：卫生技术评估、健康效用测量与健康结果研究。E-mail：lb980824@163.com
  研究员，博士生导师，博士。研究方向：经济学评价、健康结果研究、卫生政策、医疗保障。E-mail：weidong218@126.com
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金资助项目(71974048);美国中华医学基金会公开竞争项目(CMB-19-308)
- DOI：10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.04.13
  中图分类号： R956
- 纸质出版日期：2023-02-28，
  
  收稿日期：2022-09-19，
  
  修回日期：2022-12-05，
扫描看全文
刘博,徐娟,Georg Kemmler等.癌症患者健康效用测量方法介绍 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(04):450-456.

LIU Bo,XU Juan,Kemmler Georg,et al.Introduction of measurement methods of health utility for cancer patients[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(04):450-456.
刘博,徐娟,Georg Kemmler等.癌症患者健康效用测量方法介绍 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(04):450-456. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.04.13.

LIU Bo,XU Juan,Kemmler Georg,et al.Introduction of measurement methods of health utility for cancer patients[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(04):450-456. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.04.13.

摘要

癌症作为严重威胁人类健康的主要致死疾病之一，其负担之重亟待缓解，而卫生技术评估可为癌症的诊治防护及相关政策制定提供科学循证依据。成本-效用分析是卫生技术评估中经济学评价的金标准，而健康效用能否准确测量是决定其结果准确程度的关键要素之一。本文重点对癌症领域健康效用测量中的直接测量法、多属性健康效用测量量表法和映射法进行系统介绍并对其在癌症患者中的应用进行评述。其中，直接测量方法在癌症患者测量中存在操作复杂、成本较高以及对受试者的认知要求较高等不足；多属性健康效用测量量表法是当前癌症患者健康效用测量的首选方法；而映射法随着多属性健康效用测量量表中疾病特异性效用量表的不断发展完善，在未来应用中可能会逐渐减少。本文可为癌症领域卫生技术评估健康效用测量工具的选择提供参考，为优化癌症领域资源配置以及政策制定提供循证依据。

Abstract

Cancer is one of the major fatal diseases that seriously threaten human health， and its burden needs to be solved urgently. Health technology assessment （HTA） can provide scientific evidence-based basis for cancer diagnosis， treatment， prevention and related policy formulation. Cost-utility analysis is the gold standard for economic evaluation in HTA， and the accurate measurement of its health utility is one of the key elements to determine the accuracy of its results. This article focuses on systematic introduction of direct measures， multi-attribute health utility scales， and mapping methods in the field of cancer measurement and reviews their applications in cancer patients. Among them， direct measures are complex， costly， and require a high level of subject knowledge； multi-attribute health utility measures are currently the preferred method for measuring health utility in cancer patients； with the continuous development and refinement of disease-specific utility measures in multi-attribute health utility instruments， the mapping method may gradually decrease in future applications. This paper can provide a reference for the selection of health utility measurement tools for HTA in the field of cancer， and provide evidence-based basis for optimizing resource allocation and policy formulation in the field of cancer.

关键词

癌症健康效用测量方法卫生技术评估成本-效用分析

Keywords

health utilitymeasurement methodhealth technology assessmentcost-utility analysis

references

SUNG H，FERLAY J，SIEGEL R L，et al. Global cancer statistics 2020：GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin，2021，71（3）：209-249.

ROBINSON R. Cost-utility analysis[J]. BMJ，1993，307（6908）：859-862.

TORRANCE G W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal[J]. J Health Econ，1986，5（1）：1-30.

MORIMOTO T，FUKUI T. Utilities measured by rating scale，time trade-off，and standard gamble：review and re-ference for health care professionals[J]. J Epidemiol，2002，12（2）：160-178.

MCNAMEE P，GLENDINNING S，SHENFINE J，et al. Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer[J]. Eur J Health Econ，2004，5（1）：81-86.

KAPLAN R M，CRESPI C M，DAHAN E，et al. Comparison of rating scale，time tradeoff，and conjoint analysis methods for assessment of preferences in prostate cancer[J]. Med Decis Making，2019，39（7）：816-826.

KIM E J，OCK M，KIM K，et al. Disease severity-based evaluation of utility weights for lung cancer-related health states in Korea[J]. BMC Cancer，2018，18（1）：1-8.

JANSEN S J T，KIEVIT J，NOOIJ M A，et al. Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy：the impact of experience[J]. Medical Decision Making，2001，21（4）：295-306.

MCNEIL B J，WEICHSELBAUM R，PAUKER S G. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer[J]. N Engl J Med，1978，299（25）：1397-1401.

STIGGELBOUT A M，KIEBERT G M，KIEVIT J，et al. Utility assesment in cancer patiens：adjustment of time trade-off scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores[J]. Med Decis Making，1994，14（1）：82-90.

WHITTY J A，GONÇALVES A S O. A systematic review comparing the acceptability，validity and concordance of discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling for eliciting preferences in healthcare[J]. Patient，2018，11（3）：301-317.

WHITTY J A，RATCLIFFE J，CHEN G，et al. Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies：a comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods[J]. Med Decis Making，2014，34（5）：638-654.

MACULAITIS M C，LIU X C，WILL O，et al. Oncologist and patient preferences for attributes of CDK4/6 inhibitor regimens for the treatment of advanced/metastatic HR positive/HER2 negative breast cancer：discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling[J]. Patient Prefer Adhe-rence，2020，14：2201-2214.

ZENG X Y，SUI M J，LIU B，et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in six commonly diagnosed cancers[J]. Patient，2021，14（2）：209-222.

GOLICKI D，MŁYŃCZAK K. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-Y：a systematic review[J/OL]. Value Health，2022[2022-09-10]. http：//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022. 05.013http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.013.

沈安乐，张顺国，罗南，等. EQ-5D-Y用于评价血液肿瘤儿童健康相关生命质量的可行性与效度分析[J]. 中国药师，2020，23（4）：665-670.

BRAZIER J E，MULHERN B J，BJORNER J B，et al. Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2：SF-6Dv2[J]. Med Care，2020，58（6）：557-565.

NAHVIJOU A，SAFARI H，AMERI H. Psychometric properties of the SF-6Dv2 in an Iranian breast cancer population[J]. Breast Cancer，2021，28（4）：937-943.

XU R H，DONG D，LUO N，et al. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia[J]. Eur J Health Econ，2021，22（4）：547-557.

TRAMONTANO A C，SCHRAG D L，MALIN J K，et al. Catalog and comparison of societal preferences（utilities）for lung cancer health states：results from the cancer care outcomes research and surveillance（CanCORS）study[J]. Med Decis Making，2015，35（3）：371-387.

YOUSEFI M，NAJAFI S，GHAFFARI S，et al. Comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D scores in patients with breast cancer[J]. Iran Red Crescent Med J，2016，18（5）：e23556.

LOVRICS P J，CORNACCHI S D，BARNABI F，et al. The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer：a prospective longitudinal study[J]. Qual Life Res，2008，17（2）：333-345.

SHIMODA S，DE CAMARGO B，HORSMAN J，et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of health utilities index（HUI）mark 2（HUI2）and mark 3（HUI3）with application to survivors of childhood cancer in Brazil[J]. Qual Life Res，2005，14（5）：1407-1412.

FU L，TALSMA D，BAEZ F，et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life in survivors of cancer in childhood in Central America：feasibility，reliability，and validity[J]. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol，2006，28（6）：331-341.

BORAN P，HORSMAN J，TOKUC G，et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of health utilities index with application to pediatric oncology patients during neutropenia and recovery in Turkey[J]. Pediatr Blood Cancer，2011，56（5）：812-817.

KAPLAN R M，BUSH J W，BERRY C C. Health status：types of validity and the index of well-being[J]. Health Serv Res，1976，11（4）：478-507.

BRADLYN A S，HARRIS C V，WARNER J E，et al. An investigation of the validity of the quality of well-being scale with pediatric oncology patients[J]. Health Psychol，1993，12（3）：246-250.

SINTONEN H. The 15D instrument of health-related qua-lity of life：properties and applications[J]. Ann Med，2001，33（5）：328-336.

NGOC THI DANG D，NGOC THI NGUYEN L，THI DANG N，et al. Quality of life in Vietnamese gastric cancer patients[J]. Biomed Res Int，2019，2019：7167065.

MÖRT S，SALANTERÄ S，MATOMÄKI J，et al. Self-reported health-related quality of life of children and adolescent survivors of extracranial childhood malignancies：a Finnish nationwide survey[J]. Qual Life Res，2011，20（5）：787-797.

KING M T，COSTA D S J，AARONSON N K，et al. Erratum to：QLU-C10D：a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30[J]. Qual Life Res，2016，25（10）：2683.

KING M T，NORMAN R，MERCIECA-BEBBER R，et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension（FACT-8D），a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific FACT-general（FACT-G）quality of life questionnaire：development and Australian value set[J]. Value Health，2021，24（6）：862-873.

ROWEN D，BRAZIER J，YOUNG T，et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30[J]. Value Health，2011，14（5）：721-731.

YOUNG T，YANG Y L，BRAZIER J E，et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures：construc-ting a health-state classification using Rasch analysis[J]. Qual Life Res，2009，18（2）：253-265.

GAMPER E M，HOLZNER B，KING M T，et al. Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health states[J]. Value Health，2018，21（8）：958-966.

BULAMU N B，VISSAPRAGADA R，CHEN G，et al. Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes，2021，19（1）：233.

GAMPER E M，KING M T，NORMAN R，et al. The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients：a first step towards patient utility weights[J]. J Patient Rep Outcomes，2022，6（1）：42.

HERDMAN M，KERR C，PAVESI M，et al. Testing the validity and responsiveness of a new cancer-specific health utility measure（FACT-8D）in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma，and comparison to EQ-5D-5L[J]. J Patient Rep Outcomes，2020，4（1）：22.

BRAZIER J E，YANG Y L，TSUCHIYA A，et al. A review of studies mapping（or cross walking）non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures[J]. Eur J Health Econ，2010，11（2）：215-225.

KONTODIMOPOULOS N，ALETRAS V H，PALIOURAS D，et al. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D，SF-6D，and 15D instruments[J]. Value Health，2009，12（8）：1151-1157.

LONGWORTH L，YANG Y L，YOUNG T，et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making：a systematic review，statistical modelling and survey[J]. Health Technol Assess，2014，18（9）：1-224.

GREEN D，GALVIN H，HORNE B. The psycho-social impact of infertility on young male cancer survivors：a qualitative investigation[J]. Psychooncology，2003，12（2）：141-152.

CUNNINGHAM R M，WALTON M A，CARTER P M. The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States[J]. N Engl J Med，2018，379（25）：2468-2475.

CHEN P Y，HUDSON M M，LI M H，et al. Health utilities in pediatric cancer patients and survivors：a systematic review and meta-analysis for clinical implementation[J]. Qual Life Res，2022，31（2）：343-374.

ZHOU W J，SHEN A L，YANG Z H，et al. Patient-caregiver agreement and test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies[J]. Eur J Health Econ，2021，22（7）：1103-1113.

TAKURA T，KOIKE T，MATSUO Y，et al. Proxy responses regarding quality of life of patients with terminal lung cancer：preliminary results from a prospective observational study[J]. BMJ Open，2022，12（2）：e048232.

PARSONS S K，FAIRCLOUGH D L，WANG J，et al. Comparing longitudinal assessments of quality of life by patient and parent in newly diagnosed children with cancer：the value of both raters’ perspectives[J]. Qual Life Res，2012，21（5）：915-923.

司燕会，李顺平，杨惠芝，等. EQ-5D量表附加维度及应用述评[J]. 中国卫生经济，2021，40（1）：17-21.

HOEYMANS N，VAN LINDERT H，WESTERT G P. The health status of the Dutch population as assessed by the EQ-6D[J]. Qual Life Res，2005，14（3）：655-663.

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

多格列艾汀联用治疗二甲双胍失效2型糖尿病患者的成本-效用分析

德曲妥珠单抗对比恩美曲妥珠单抗二线治疗HER2阳性转移性乳腺癌的成本-效用分析

氯吡格雷对比阿司匹林用于缺血性脑卒中二级预防的药物经济学评价

替雷利珠单抗单药二线治疗晚期或转移性食管鳞状细胞癌的成本-效用分析

地舒单抗和特立帕肽治疗中国女性绝经后骨质疏松症的成本-效用分析