To perform a comparison of the measurement properties of two cancer-specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs), EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D, in Chinese patients with hematologic malignancies (HM). We conducted a longitudinal study on patients with HM in China, using QLU-C10D and FACT-8D at baseline and follow-up (3–4 months from baseline). We assessed: (i) convergent validity using Spearman’s rank correlation test (r) with EQ-5D-5L; (ii) clinical-groups validity by differentiating cancer stages, overall health assessment (OHA), Eastern Cancer Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and mental health status. We also examined clinical validity with effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE); (iii) responsiveness to changes in patient self-perception using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curves (AUC); and (iv) agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and visualized with Bland-Altman plot. Among the 308 patients with HM at baseline, 131 completed the follow-up survey. Agreement between the two measures was high (ICC = 0.76). Both measures were highly correlated with EQ-5D-5 L and significantly differentiated (p < 0.001) among groups categorized by cancer stage, OHA performance status, and mental health. ESs for QLU-C10D were numerically higher for cancer stage, OHA, and performance status (ES = 0.53–1.49), whereas ES was higher for FACT-8D and mental health status (ES = 1.35). Responsiveness was higher for QLU-C10D (AUC = 0.84) compared to FACT-8D (AUC = 0.78). Both QLU-C10D and FACT-8D are valid cancer-specific MAUIs for evaluating patients with HM. However, scholars should consider their slight differences in focus when choosing between the two measures.

Given the recent update of SF-6Dv2, detailed data on utility scores for cancer patients by cancer type remain scarce in China and other regions, which limits the precision of cost-utility analyses (CUA) in cancer interventions. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate utility scores of six common cancers in China measured using SF-6Dv2, and identify the potential factors associated with utility scores. A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted from August 2022 to December 2023. It recruited 896 cancer patients from three tertiary hospitals in China, including 270 with lung cancer, 96 with stomach cancer, 88 with liver cancer, 71 with oesophagus cancer, 142 with colorectum cancer, and 160 with breast cancer. The validated Simplified Chinese version of the SF-6Dv2 was used to calculate utilities based on the Chinese value set, and the utility values were described using the mean and standard deviation (SD). Participants’ socio-demographic, behavioral and clinical characteristics were also obtained from the survey. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were performed to explore the impact of these three categories of characteristics on utility scores derived from SF-6Dv2 for the total cancer patients and each cancer group. The mean utility score was 0.66 (SD = 0.26) for the total cancer sample, 0.66 (SD = 0.25) for lung cancer, 0.75 (SD = 0.23) for stomach cancer, 0.69 (SD = 0.24) for liver cancer, 0.69 (SD = 0.24) for oesophagus cancer, 0.65 (SD = 0.31) for colorectum cancer, and 0.57 (SD = 0.24) for breast cancer. Multivariate linear regression analysis indicated that patients who were older, from larger families, under greater economic pressures, undergoing fewer health examinations, smoking, and in advanced cancer stages had lower utility scores in the total cancer sample (p<0.05), with variations observed across different cancer types. This study is one of the first to apply the SF-6Dv2 to a heterogeneous group of cancer patients, providing evidence for conducting CUA with SF-6Dv2 across six common cancers in China. In addition, the study provides a basis for improving interventions for different cancer types.

Objectives Little is known about the diversity of residents' preferences for COVID-19 vaccines during the time when COVID-19 management was downgraded in China. This study aims to investigate these preferences using discrete choice experiment (DCE) and profile case best–worst scaling (BWS-2), and to assess the concordance between these two methods. Methods Chinese residents recruited for the online survey were asked to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine profiles through both DCE and BWS-2 from April to July 2023. Attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection, risk of severe adverse events (degree), the total out-of-pocket (OOP) cost, brand, and the vaccination method. We utilized conditional regression and mixed logit regression models to estimate the preference levels for potential attributes. To assess preference concordance between the two methods, re-scaling and the Spearman correlation test were used. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the most suitable method for different population groups, categorized by vaccine hesitancy and risk level. Results A total of 438 (71.22%) respondents were included. A similar pattern was found in the DCE and BWS-2 methods, with the respondents having a strong preference for 90% vaccine effectiveness. However, the methods diverged in other preferences; DCE favored domestic brands and low severe adverse event risk, while BWS-2 preferred moderate risk and three years of protection. Concordance assessment, including Spearman's correlation and linear regression, showed no significant correlation and poor concordance between the methods, underscoring these differences. Preference heterogeneity is revealed among different groups; however, effectiveness remained the most important attribute for all subgroups of the population. Oral vaccination was the preferred option for both the vaccine-hesitant and high-risk groups. Conclusion This study offers new insights into the varying preferences for COVID-19 vaccines among Chinese residents following the downgrading of pandemic management measures. The findings underscore the need for diverse strategies in vaccine policy design. Special emphasis should be placed on vaccine attributes that align with public priorities, such as high effectiveness and low risk levels, to enhance vaccine uptake.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and responsiveness of the SF-6Dv2, and to provide the first comparative assessment of its validity against the EQ-5D-5L in Chinese patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between August 2022 and December 2023 in three tertiary hospitals in Harbin, China. Eligible CRC patients completed face-to-face baseline interviews to collect demographics, health behaviors, clinical characteristics, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2. Follow-up surveys were administered at 7 days and 3 months to collect self-reported health changes and SF-6Dv2. Ceiling and floor effects were assessed by calculating the proportion of respondents reporting the best and worst possible health states. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman’s correlation with EQ-5D-5L as the reference. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing utility scores across groups categorized by health behaviors and clinical characteristics, testing effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE). Agreement was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Test-retest reliability of SF-6Dv2 utility and dimension scores was evaluated using ICC and Gwet’s AC over 7 days. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response mean (SRM) over 4 months.Results: Baseline included 287 CRC patients; 131 and 111 completed first and second follow-ups. A higher ceiling effect was observed in EQ-5D-5L than in SF-6Dv2 (16.7% vs 3.1%). The Spearman correlation between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utility scores was 0.716 (dimensions: 0.313-0.675). Utility scores from EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.686). SF-6Dv2 showed superior known-groups validity in surgical treatment (RE = 1.796) and ECOG groups (RE = 1.953). SF-6Dv2 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for utility scores (ICC = 0.866), with Gwet’s AC across dimensions (0.322-0.669). SF-6Dv2 showed greater responsiveness in the worsened group (SRM = 0.788) compared to the improved group (SRM = 0.687).Conclusions: SF-6Dv2 showed comparable reliability and responsiveness when used in patients with CRC, out-performing EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical known-groups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.