Perbandingan EQ-5D-5L dan SF-6D Untuk Mengukur Index Utility Kesehatan Pada Populasi Umum di Yogyakarta

Tri Murti Andayani(1*), Dwi Endarti(2), Susi Ari Kristina(3), Anindya Rahmawati(4)

(1) Department of PHarmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(4) Graduate Program of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author


The EuroQuality of life-5 dimension 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) are the most widely used generic instruments for assessing utility as an outcome parameter in pharmacoeconomic studies. Different instruments cause different utility values and influence the decision making. The purpose of this study was to compare the utility score index measured using EuroQuality of life-5 dimension 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) in general population. The study was conducted cross sectional design in general population in the Yogyakarta. EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D questionnaires were given to 470 respondents to measure the utility score index. Differences of utility index scores based on demographic characteristics were analyzed using Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis test, while correlations between EQ-5D and SF-6D domains with utility scores were analyzed using Pearson Correlation. Limits of agreement were described by Bland and Altman Plot. The results of the study showed the utility scores measured using EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, and SF-6D were 0.944 (SD = 0.093), 0.829 (SD = 0.089) and 0.915 (SD = 0.081) respectively. EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS can distinguish utility values based on age. There is a strong correlation (> 0.700) between the domain of mobility and pain with the EQ-5D-5L utility index, and the domain of physical function and pain with the SF-6D utility index. Ceiling effect of EQ-5D-5L (59%) is greater than SF-6D (22.4%). The Bland and Altman plot shows the difference in utility scores of  EQ-5D-5L with SF-6D, SF-6D with EQ-VAS, and EQ-5D-5L with VAS, respectively at the limit of agreement 92.98%, 96 , 38%, and 95.74%. EQ-5D-5L can distinguish utility scores based on age, but showed higher ceiling effect. Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D showed a strong correlation between the domain of mobility (physical function) and pain with the utility score.


utility index; EQ-5D-5L; SF-6D; the general population

Full Text:



  1. PPJK. Buku Panduan Penilaian Teknologi Kesehatan Efektivitas Klinis Dan Evaluasi Ekonomi Pusat Pembiayaan Dan Jaminan Kesehatan. Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan RI Komite Penilaian Teknologi Kesehatan; 2017.
  2. Andayani TM. Farmakoekonomi : Prinsip Dan Metodologi. Yogyakarta: Bursa Ilmu; 2013.
  3. Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Hoang Le QN, Tran TT, Latkin CA. Quality of life profile of general Vietnamese population using EQ-5D-5L. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1). doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0771-0
  4. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, Wouters E, Kuijpers P, Honig A, Willems D, de Leeuw P, Severens J, Boonen A. The Impact of Differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D Utility Scores on the Acceptability of Cost–Utility Ratios: Results across Five Trial-Based Cost–Utility Studies. Value Health. 2010;13(2):222-229. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00669.x
  5. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, Tountas Y, Niakas D. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):87-97. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8
  6. Salaffi F, Carotti M, Ciapetti A, Gasparini S, Grassi W. A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference-based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29(4):661-671.
  7. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health From the SF-12: Med Care. 2004;42(9):851-859. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
  8. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an Algorithm to Convert the Eight Mean SF-36 Dimension Scores into a Mean EQ-5D Preference-Based Score from Published Studies (Where Patient Level Data Are Not Available). Value Health. 2008;11(7):1131-1143. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x
  9. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A,Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goni JM, Passchier J, Busschbach JJV. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(11):1153-1165. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9
  10. Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1). doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8
  11. Islam N, Khan IH, Ferdous N, Rasker JJ. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the English “Short form SF 12v2” into Bengali in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1). doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0683-z
  12. Chen J, Wong CKH, McGhee SM, Pang PKP, Yu W-C. A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Courvoisier DS, ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e112389. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112389
  13. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson ANA. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2005;14(5):1321-1332.
  14. Wu J, Han Y, Zhao F-L, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1). doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0156-6
  15. Jin H, Wang B, Gao Q, Chao J, Wang S, Tian L, Liu P. Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D Utility in Rural Residents of Jiangsu Province, China. Fielding R, ed. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e41550. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041550
  16. Thaweethamcharoen T, Noparatayaporn P, Sritippayawan S, Aiyasanon N. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;18:59-64. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2018.08.005


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 4393 | views : 4765


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 JURNAL MANAJEMEN DAN PELAYANAN FARMASI (Journal of Management and Pharmacy Practice)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

©Jurnal Manajemen dan Pelayanan Farmasi
Faculty of Pharmacy
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Creative Commons License
View My Stats