Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 9/2020

Open Access 01-09-2020

Does the EQ-5D usual activities dimension measure what it intends to measure? The relative importance of work, study, housework, family or leisure activities

Authors: Thor Gamst-Klaussen, Admassu N. Lamu

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The EQ-5D is the most widely used generic preference-based health-related quality of life measure. It comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. The usual activities dimension asks respondents to evaluate the severity of problems in their usual activities, such as work, study, housework, family or leisure activities. The primary aim of this study is to investigate whether the EQ-5D (five-level) usual activities dimension captures those activities that it intends to capture. We further assess the relative importance of each of these activities for the usual activities dimension.

Methods

Data include 7933 respondents from six countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, the UK, and the US. Logistic regression and ordinary least square regression models investigate the relationship between the usual activities dimension and its main predictors (work/study, housework, family, and leisure activities). A Shapley value decomposition method was applied to measure the relative importance of each predictor.

Results

Work/study, housework, family, and leisure activities were all significant (p < 0.001) determinants of usual activities dimension. The respective marginal contribution (in %) of housework, leisure, work/study and family to UA dimension (as a share of goodness-of-fit) is 28.0, 26.2, 20.8 and 14.7 in the logistic regression model. This finding is consistent when linear regression is used as an alternative model.

Conclusions

The usual activities dimension in EQ-5D reflects the specific activities described to respondents. Therefore, the usual activities dimension measures what it really intends to measure.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wisløff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375.CrossRef
2.
Richardson, J. R., Mckie, J. R., & Bariola, E. J. (2014). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier Science.CrossRef
3.
Devlin, N. J., & Brooks, R. (2017). EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: Past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137.CrossRef
4.
Gudex, C. (2005). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 19–27). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
5.
Selai, C. (1998). The measurement precision of the EQ-5D domain “Usual activities”, EuroQol Proceedings. Hannover: EuroQol.
6.
Menzel, P., Dolan, P., Richardson, J., & Olsen, J. A. (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 55(12), 2149–2158.CrossRef
7.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1225–1237.CrossRef
9.
Dorman, P. J., Waddell, F., Slattery, J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1997). Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke, 28(10), 1883–1887.CrossRef
10.
Solli, O., Stavem, K., & Kristiansen, I. S. (2010). Health-related quality of life in diabetes: The associations of complications with EQ-5D scores. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8(1), 18.CrossRef
11.
Lin, F. J., Pickard, A. S., Krishnan, J. A., Joo, M. J., Au, D. H., Carson, S. S., et al. (2014). Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 78.CrossRef
12.
Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2018). What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. The European Journal of Health Economics, 19(4), 557–570.CrossRef
13.
Kangwanrattanakul, K., & Phimarn, W. (2019). A systematic review of the development and testing of additional dimensions for the EQ-5D descriptive system. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 19(4), 431–443.CrossRef
14.
Gamst-Klaussen, T., Gudex, C., & Olsen, J. A. (2018). Exploring the causal and effect nature of EQ-5D dimensions: An application of confirmatory tetrad analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 153.CrossRef
15.
Nordlund, A., Ekberg, K., & Kristenson, M. (2005). EQ-5D in a general population survey—A description of the most commonly reported EQ-5D health states using the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(4), 1099–1109.CrossRef
16.
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(2), 155–166.CrossRef
17.
18.
Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones GEOGRAPHICAE, 30(2), 87.CrossRef
19.
O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.CrossRef
20.
Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 152, 176–185.CrossRef
21.
Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for n-person games. In H. W. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), The theory of games (Vol. II, pp. 307–317). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
Shorrocks, A. F. (2013). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: A unified framework based on the Shapley value. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 11(1), 99–126.CrossRef
23.
McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 303–328.CrossRef
24.
Smith, T. J., & McKenna, C. M. (2013). A comparison of logistic regression pseudo R2 indices. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 39(2), 17–26.
25.
Fox-Rushby, J. (2005). First steps to assessing semantic equivalence of the EuroQol instrument: Results of a questionnaire survey to members of the EuroQol Group. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 35–52). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
26.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1005–1012.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Does the EQ-5D usual activities dimension measure what it intends to measure? The relative importance of work, study, housework, family or leisure activities
Authors
Thor Gamst-Klaussen
Admassu N. Lamu
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02501-w

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

Quality of Life Research 9/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Does exercise program of endurance and strength improve health-related quality of life in persons living with HIV-related distal symmetrical polyneuropathy? A randomized controlled trial

Review

Global mapping of interventions to improve quality of life of patients with depression during 1990–2018

OriginalPaper

Patient-reported outcomes in maintenance hemodialysis: a cross-sectional, multicenter study

OriginalPaper

Better sleep, better life? How sleep quality influences children’s life satisfaction

OriginalPaper

Parental health spillover effects of paediatric rare genetic conditions

OriginalPaper

A qualitative inquiry into patients’ perspectives on individualized priorities for treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel diseases