Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Volume 2016, Article ID 5023973, 9 pages
Research Article

Comparison of the Multiattribute Utility Instruments EQ-5D and SF-6D in a Europe-Wide Population-Based Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease 10 Years after Diagnosis

1Department of Gastroenterology, Telemark Hospital, 3710 Skien, Norway
2Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, 0310 Oslo, Norway
3Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
4Department of Gastroenterology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, 0424 Oslo, Norway
5Department of Medicine, Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
6Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 84105 Beersheba, Israel
7Department of Biostatistics, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway
8Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Ferrara, 44124 Ferrara, Italy
9Department of Research and Development, Telemark Hospital, 3710 Skien, Norway

Received 30 March 2016; Accepted 11 July 2016

Academic Editor: Paolo Gionchetti

Copyright © 2016 Gert Huppertz-Hauss et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background. The treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is costly, and limited resources call for analyses of the cost effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. The present study evaluated the equivalency of the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and the Euro QoL (EQ-5D), two preference-based HRQoL instruments that are broadly used in cost-effectiveness analyses, in an unselected IBD patient population. Methods. IBD patients from seven European countries were invited to a follow-up visit ten years after their initial diagnosis. Clinical and demographic data were assessed, and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) was employed. Utility scores were obtained by calculating the SF-6D index values from the SF-36 data for comparison with the scores obtained with the EQ-5D questionnaire. Results. The SF-6D and EQ-5D provided good sensitivities for detecting disease activity-dependent utility differences. However, the single-measure intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.58, and the Bland-Altman plot indicated numerous values beyond the limits of agreement. Conclusions. There was poor agreement between the measures retrieved from the EQ-5D and the SF-6D utility instruments. Although both instruments may provide good sensitivity for the detection of disease activity-dependent utility differences, the instruments cannot be used interchangeably. Cost-utility analyses performed with only one utility instrument must be interpreted with caution.