Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2013

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study

Authors: M. F. Janssen, A. Simon Pickard, Dominik Golicki, Claire Gudex, Maciej Niewada, Luciana Scalone, Paul Swinburn, Jan Busschbach

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2013

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the 5-level classification system of the EQ-5D (5L), in comparison with the 3-level EQ-5D (3L).

Methods

Participants (n = 3,919) from six countries, including eight patient groups with chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, depression, diabetes, liver disease, personality disorders, arthritis, and stroke) and a student cohort, completed the 3L and 5L and, for most participants, also dimension-specific rating scales. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of feasibility (missing values), redistribution properties, ceiling, discriminatory power, convergent validity, and known-groups validity.

Results

Missing values were on average 0.8 % for 5L and 1.3 % for 3L. In total, 2.9 % of responses were inconsistent between 5L and 3L. Redistribution from 3L to 5L using EQ dimension-specific rating scales as reference was validated for all 35 3L–5L-level combinations. For 5L, 683 unique health states were observed versus 124 for 3L. The ceiling was reduced from 20.2 % (3L) to 16.0 % (5L). Absolute discriminatory power (Shannon index) improved considerably with 5L (mean 1.87 for 5L versus 1.24 for 3L), and relative discriminatory power (Shannon Evenness index) improved slightly (mean 0.81 for 5L versus 0.78 for 3L). Convergent validity with WHO-5 was demonstrated and improved slightly with 5L. Known-groups validity was confirmed for both 5L and 3L.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L appears to be a valid extension of the 3-level system which improves upon the measurement properties, reducing the ceiling while improving discriminatory power and establishing convergent and known-groups validity.

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

Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. J. (2007). EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef

Pickard, A. S., Wilke, C. T., Lin, H. W., et al. (2007). Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics, 25, 365–384.PubMedCrossRef

Janssen, M. F., Lubetkin, E. I., Sekhobo, J. P., et al. (2011). The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine, 28, 395–413.PubMedCrossRef

Pickard, A. S., Wilke, C., Jung, E., et al. (2008). Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine, 102, 519–536.PubMedCrossRef

Dyer, M. T., Goldsmith, K. A., Sharples, L. S., et al. (2010). A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 13.PubMedCrossRef

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. Med Care, 38, 115–121.CrossRef

Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7, 155–166.PubMedCrossRef

Macran, S., Weatherly, H., & Kind, P. (2003). Measuring population health - A comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care, 41, 218–231.PubMed

10.

Wu, A. W., Jacobson, K. L., Frick, K. D., et al. (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11, 273–282.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Myers, C., & Wilks, D. (1999). Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Quality of Life Research, 8, 9–16.PubMedCrossRef

12.

van de Willige, G., Wiersma, D., Nienhuis, F. J., et al. (2005). Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric patients: a comparison between EuroQol (EQ-5D) and WHOQoL. Quality of Life Research, 14, 441–451.PubMedCrossRef

13.

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

14.

Houle, C., Bertheloth, C. M., & Health Analysis and Modeling Group. (2000). Head-to-Head Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the Population Living in Private Households in Canada. Quality of Life Newsletter, 24, 5–6.

15.

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

16.

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. Qual Life Res, 14, 119–132.CrossRef

17.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Tsychiya, A. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kaarlola, A., Pettila, V., & Kekki, P. (2004). Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Medicine, 30, 2245–2252.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.PubMedCrossRef

20.

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

21.

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

22.

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 two methods. Quality of Life Research, 17, 463–473.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., et al. (2011). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1065–1073.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Bech, P., Gudex, C., & Johansen, K. S. (1996). The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 183–190.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bech, P., Olsen, L. R., Kjoller, M., & Rasmussen, N. K. (2003). Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, 12, 85–91.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.CrossRef

27.

Krebs, C. J. (1989). Ecological methodology. New York: Harper & Row.

28.

Rao, G. S., Hamid, Z., & Rao, J. S. (1979). The information content of DNA and evolution. J Theor Biology, 81, 803–807.CrossRef

29.

Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research, 16, 895–904.CrossRef

30.

Polinder, S., Haagsma, J. A., Bonsel, G., et al. (2010). The measurement of long-term health-related quality of life after injury: comparison of EQ-5D and the health utilities index. Inj Prev, 16, 147–153.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

32.

Datta, S., Satten, G. A. Rank-sum tests for clustered data. J Am Stat Assoc 100, 908–915.

33.

Datta S, Satten GA. A signed-rank test for clustered data. Biometrics, 64, 501–507.

34.

van Hout, B. A., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y.-S., et al. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health, 15, 708–715.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study
Authors: M. F. Janssen
A. Simon Pickard
Dominik Golicki
Claire Gudex
Maciej Niewada
Luciana Scalone
Paul Swinburn
Jan Busschbach
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study

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 7/2013

The association of responsiveness in oral and general health-related quality of life with patients’ satisfaction of new complete dentures

Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients

Impact of hepatitis B and C co-infection on health-related quality of life in HIV positive individuals

Health behaviors contribute to quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure independent of psychological and medical patient characteristics

Perceived social support predicted quality of life in patients with heart failure, but the effect is mediated by depressive symptoms

Perception of stress level, trunk appearance, body function and mental health in females with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated conservatively: a longitudinal analysis