Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

28-09-2024 | Original Paper

Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D instruments in a general child population based on self-reports and proxy-reports

Authors: Yan Li, Yanqiu Chen, Jize Sun, Mingyu Jiang, Aixia Ma, Tiantian Tao, Pingyu Chen

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

Objective

This study utilized the EQ-5D-Y and the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) instruments to empirically investigate a general child population aged 7–8 years in China, with the aim of assessing and comparing the performance, correlation, and agreement between these two instruments. Both self-reported and proxy-reported versions of the instruments were considered in the analysis.

Methods

Data were collected from 7-8-year-old students in the second grade from four schools in Guangxi and Guiyang provinces, China. Children and their proxies independently completed their respective versions of the questionnaires, including the EQ-5D-Y, the CHU-9D, and other socio-demographic information. The psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D were assessed, including ceiling effects, internal consistency, and known-group validity. Spearman’s correlation coefficient, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots were calculated and plotted to assess the correlation and agreement between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D.

Results

A total of 369 pairs of valid questionnaires were collected from both children and proxies. Due to the study’s focus on a general child population, both EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D yielded high utility values, with a significant ceiling effect observed, particularly in the EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported results. Compared to the EQ-5D-Y, the CHU-9D demonstrated a higher Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and better internal consistency. Both instruments also demonstrated known-group validity, distinguishing different health status groups, except for EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported results. Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicated some correlations in similar dimensions and utility values between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. The ICC of the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D utility values was 0.290 for self-reports and 0.383 for proxy-reports, indicating poor agreement between the two instruments. The Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean utility values obtained from EQ-5D-Y were significantly higher than those from CHU-9D.

Conclusion

The EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D demonstrated acceptable performance within the general child population aged 7–8 years in China, except for the EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported version. It suffered from a notable ceiling effect, poor internal consistency, as well as weak known-group validity and discriminative ability. Moreover, although there existed a certain degree of correlation between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D, their utility values exhibited significant differences. Therefore, these instruments are not interchangeable in practice.

Cesnales, N.I., Thyer, B.A.: Health-Related Quality of Life measures. In: Michalos, A.C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of life and well-being Research. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands; (2014)

Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 4 edn. Oxford University Press (2015)

Whitehead, S.J., Ali, S.: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. Brit Med. Bull. 96, 5–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033CrossRefPubMed

Lewis, V.: Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use, 5th edition. Aust Nz J. Publ Heal. 40(3), 294–295 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12484CrossRef

Arnold, D., Girling, A., Stevens, A., Lilford, R.: Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 339, b2688 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2688CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Khadka, J., Kwon, J., Petrou, S., Lancsar, E., Ratcliffe, J.: Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, 112543 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112543CrossRefPubMed

Xu, R.H., Zhu, L., Sun, R., Tan, R.L., Luo, N., Zou, S., et al.: Investigating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, CHU-9D, and PedsQL in children and adolescents with osteogenesis imperfecta. Eur. J. Pediatr. 181(12), 4049–4058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04626-1CrossRefPubMed

Zanganeh, M., Adab, P., Li, B., Frew, E.: An assessment of the construct validity of the Child Health Utility 9D-CHN instrument in school-aged children: Evidence from a Chinese trial. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 19(1), 205 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01840-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pan, C.W., Zhong, H., Li, J., Suo, C., Wang, P.: Measuring health-related quality of life in elementary and secondary school students using the Chinese version of the EQ-5D-Y in rural China. Bmc Public. Health. 20(1), 982 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09116-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Pei, W., Yue, S., Zhi-Hao, Y., Ruo-Yu, Z., Bin, W., Nan, L.: Testing measurement properties of two EQ-5D youth versions and KIDSCREEN-10 in China. Eur. J. Health Econ. 22(7), 1083–1093 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01307-yCrossRefPubMed

11.

Zhou, W., Li, Y., Busschbach, J., Herdman, M., Yang, Z., Lu, Y.: Psychometric validation of the Chinese versions of EQ-5D-Y-3L and the experimental EQ-TIPS in children and adolescents with COVID-19. Eur. J. Health Econ. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01710-1CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Scott, J.G., Bucholc, J., Allen, C., Coghill, D., et al.: Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in children and adolescents with Mental Health problems: Are Multiattribute Utility instruments fit for purpose? Value. Health: J. Int. Soc. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 26(5), 733–741 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.007CrossRef

13.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A.: Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual. Life Res. 24(8), 2045–2053 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A., Richardson, J.: Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br. J. Psychiatry: J. Mental Sci. 205(5), 390–397 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.136036CrossRef

15.

Chen, G., Flynn, T., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Huynh, E., Sawyer, M., et al.: Assessing the Health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: An empirical comparison of the Child Health Utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value Health: J. Int. Soc. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 18(4), 432–438 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.014CrossRef

16.

Lynch, F.L., Dickerson, J.F., Feeny, D.H., Clarke, G.N., MacMillan, A.L.: Measuring Health-related quality of life in teens with and without Depression. Med. Care. 54(12), 1089–1097 (2016)CrossRefPubMed

17.

Canaway, A.G., Frew, E.J.: Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: A comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y–the WAVES pilot study. Qual. Life Res. 22(1), 173–183 (2013)CrossRefPubMed

18.

Dickerson, J.F., Feeny, D.H., Clarke, G.N., MacMillan, A.L., Lynch, F.L.: Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Qual. Life Res. 27(2), 447–454 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1728-9CrossRefPubMed

19.

Oostenbrink, R., Moll, A., Essink-Bot, H.A.: The EQ-5D and the Health utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: A head-to-head comparison. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55(8), 791–799 (2002)CrossRefPubMed

20.

Smith-Olinde, L., Grosse, S.D., Olinde, F., Martin, P.F., Tilford, J.M.: Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: A comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3. Qual. Life Res. 17(6), 943–953 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9358-xCrossRefPubMed

21.

Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Bulamu, N., Lines, L., Chen, G., Dalziel, K., Devlin, N., et al.: A systematic review of International Guidance for Self-Report and Proxy Completion of child-specific Utility instruments. Value Health. 25(10), 1791–1804 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.04.1723CrossRefPubMed

22.

Chen, G., Xu, F., Huynh, E., Wang, Z., Stevens, K., Ratcliffe, J.: Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: Estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff. Qual. Life Res. 28(1), 163–176 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2032-zCrossRefPubMed

23.

Yang, Z., Jiang, J., Wang, P., Jin, X., Wu, J., Fang, Y., et al.: Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L value set for China. Pharmacoeconomics. 40(Suppl 2), 147–155 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01216-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Fleiss, J.L., Cohen, J.: The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 33, 613–619 (1973)CrossRef

25.

Helseth, S., Haraldstad, K., Christophersen, K.: A cross-sectional study of Health Related Quality of Life and body mass index in a Norwegian school sample (8–18 years): A comparison of child and parent perspectives. Health Qual. Life Out. 13, 47 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0239-zCrossRef

26.

Zeller, M.H., Inge, T.H., Modi, A.C., Jenkins, T.M., Michalsky, M.P., Helmrath, M., et al.: Severe obesity and comorbid condition impact on the weight-related quality of life of the adolescent patient. J. Pediatr. 166(3), 651–659 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.11.022CrossRefPubMed

27.

Xu, F., Chen, G., Stevens, K., Zhou, H., Qi, S., Wang, Z., et al.: Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents in mainland China–a pilot study. Plos One. 9(2), e89222 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089222CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

The new statistical analysis of data: New York: Springer; (1996)

29.

Yang, P., Chen, G., Wang, P., Zhang, K., Deng, F., Yang, H., et al.: Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D-CHN): A school-based study in China. Qual. Life Res. 27(7), 1921–1931 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1864-xCrossRefPubMed

30.

Kreimeier, S., Åström, M., Burström, K., Egmar, A., Gusi, N., Herdman, M., et al.: EQ-5D-Y-5L: Developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories. Qual. Life Res. 28(7), 1951–1961 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02115-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Kreimeier, S., Greiner, W.: Development of the German version of EQ-5D-Y-5L to measure health-related quality of life in children and adolescents: Identification of response labels and pilot testing. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundhwes. 144–145, 24–34 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2019.05.011CrossRefPubMed

32.

EuroQol: EQ-5D Instruments. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-y-about/

33.

Verstraete, J., Marthinus, Z., Dix-Peek, S., Scott, D.: Measurement properties and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-Y-5L compared to the EQ-5D-Y-3L in children and adolescents receiving acute orthopaedic care. Health Qual. Life Out. 20(1), 28 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01938-6CrossRef

34.

Lin, J., Wong, C., Cheung, J., Cheung, P., Luo, N.: Psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-Y-5L) in comparison with three-level (EQ-5D-Y-3L) in children and adolescents with scoliosis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 23(8), 1383–1395 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01435-zCrossRefPubMed

35.

Wong, C., Cheung, P., Luo, N., Cheung, J.: A head-to-head comparison of five-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and three-level EQ-5D-Y questionnaires in paediatric patients. Eur. J. Health Econ. 20(5), 647–656 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1026-7CrossRefPubMed

36.

Liu, W., Lin, R., Liu, W., Guo, Z., Xiong, L., Li, B., et al.: Relationship between weight status and health-related quality of life in Chinese primary school children in Guangzhou: A cross-sectional study. Health Qual. Life Out. 14(1), 166 (2016)CrossRef

37.

Frew, E.J., Pallan, M., Lancashire, E., Hemming, K., Adab, P.: Is utility-based quality of life associated with overweight in children? Evidence from the UK WAVES randomised controlled study. Bmc Pediatr. 15, 211 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-015-0526-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Drummond, M.: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann. Med. 33(5), 344–349 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002088CrossRefPubMed

39.

Canaway, A.G., Frew, E.J.: Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: A comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y—the WAVES Pilot Study. Qual. Life Res. 22(1), 173–183 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0119-5CrossRefPubMed

40.

Efthymiadou, O., Mossman, J., Kanavos, P.: Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients. Health Policy (Amsterdam Netherlands). 123(2), 159–165 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.12.003CrossRefPubMed

41.

Wolstenholme, J.L., Bargo, D., Wang, K., Harnden, A., Räisänen, U., Abel, L.: Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: A review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices. Qual. Life Res. 27(7), 1769–1780 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1831-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., Tsuchiya, A.: Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)CrossRef

Title: Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D instruments in a general child population based on self-reports and proxy-reports
Authors: Yan Li
Yanqiu Chen
Jize Sun
Mingyu Jiang
Aixia Ma
Tiantian Tao
Pingyu Chen
Publication date: 28-09-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01722-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Springer Medicine

Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D instruments in a general child population based on self-reports and proxy-reports

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content