Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2011

Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)

Authors: M. Herdman, C. Gudex, A. Lloyd, MF. Janssen, P. Kind, D. Parkin, G. Bonsel, X. Badia

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 10/2011

Abstract

Purpose

This article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure.

Methods

EQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument’s sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions.

Results

Selecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording ‘slight-moderate-severe’ problems, with anchors of ‘no problems’ and ‘unable to do’ in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states.

Conclusions

A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.

Available only for authorised users

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.PubMedCrossRef

Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7, 311–322.PubMedCrossRef

Devlin, N., Hansen, P., & Herbison, P. (2000). Variations in self-reported health status: Results from a New Zealand survey. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 113, 517–520.PubMed

Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121.PubMedCrossRef

Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316, 736–741.PubMedCrossRef

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43, 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef

Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14, 119–132.PubMedCrossRef

Agt, H. M., & van Bonsel, G. J. (2005). The number of levels in the descriptive system. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 29–33). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

10.

Espallargues, M., Czoski-Murray, C. J., Bansback, N. J., Carlton, J., Lewis, G. M., Hughes, L. A., et al. (2005). The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 46, 4016–4023.CrossRef

11.

Kaplan, R.M., Tally, S., Hays, R.D., Feeny, D., Ganiats, T.G., Palta, M., et al. (2011). Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 497–506.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ–5D three level system with a five level version. Value Health, 11, 275–284.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45, 259–263.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three level system and a five level version according to 2 methods. Quality of Life Research, 17, 463–473.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Pickard, A. S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G. J., Rosenbloom, S., & Cella, D. (2007). Evaluating equivalency between response systems: Application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Medical Care, 45, 812–819.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.CrossRef

17.

Nishisato, S., & Torii, Y. (1970). Effects of categorizing continuous normal variables on the product-moment correlation. Japanese Psychology Research, 13, 45–49.

18.

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Szabo, S. (1996). World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) assessment instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and of life and pharmaeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 355–362). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

20.

Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 933–944.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Grbich, Carol. (1999). Qualitative research in health: An introduction. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

22.

Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Skevington, S. M., & Tucker, C. (1999). Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. The British Journal of Medical Psychology, 72(Pt 1), 51–61.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Authors: M. Herdman
C. Gudex
A. Lloyd
MF. Janssen
P. Kind
D. Parkin
G. Bonsel
X. Badia
Publication date: 01-12-2011
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 10/2011
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2011

Erratum to: Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in performance and health-related quality of life scores of multiple sclerosis patients

Comparison and correlates of three preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence

Quality of life and physical limitations in primary brain tumor patients

Reliability and validity of the Taiwan (Mandarin Chinese) version of the chronic respiratory questionnaire

Data mining for response shift patterns in multiple sclerosis patients using recursive partitioning tree analysis

Impaired renal function is associated with worse self-reported outcomes after kidney transplantation