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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 11/2020

Open Access 01-11-2020 | Affective Disorder

Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: the empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions

Authors: Gang Chen, Jan Abel Olsen

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The EQ-5D is the most widely applied generic preference-based measure (GPBM) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Much concern has been raised that its descriptive system is lacking psycho-social dimensions. A recent paper in this journal provided theoretical support for four dimensions to fill this gap. The current paper aims to provide empirical support for these suggested bolt-on dimensions to the EQ-5D.

Methods

We use data from the comprehensive Multi-Instrument-Comparison (MIC) study. The four proposed bolt-on dimensions (Vitality, Sleep, Social Relationships, and Community Connectedness) were selected from the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. We investigate the relative importance of these four dimensions as compared to the five EQ-5D-5L dimensions on explaining HRQoL (measured by a visual analogue scale; N = 7846) or global life satisfaction (measured by the Satisfaction With Life Scale; N = 8005), using the Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition analysis. Robustness analyses on Vitality was conducted using data from the United States National Health Measurement Study (NHMS) (N = 3812).

Results

All five EQ-5D-5L dimensions and four bolt-on dimensions significantly explained the variance of HRQoL. Among them, Vitality was found to be the most important dimension with regard to the HRQoL (relative contribution based on the Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition of R2: 23.0%), followed by Usual Activities (15.1%). Self-Care was the least important dimension (relative contribution: 5.4%). As a comparison, when explaining global life satisfaction, Social Relationships was the most important dimension (relative contribution: 24.0%), followed by Anxiety/Depression (23.2%), while Self-Care remained the least important (relative contribution: 1.6%). The importance of the Vitality dimension in explaining HRQoL was supported in the robustness analysis using the NHMS data (relative contribution: 23.7%).

Conclusions

We provide empirical support for complementing the current EQ-5D-5L descriptive system with a coherent set of four bolt-on dimensions that will fill its psycho-social gap. Such an extended health state classification system would in particular be relevant for programme evaluations within the expanding fields of mental health and community care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (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
2.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18(9), 1–224.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, GB: Open University.
5.
Olsen, J. A., & Misajon, R. (2020). A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: Key lessons for a new instrument. Quality of Life Research, 29, 733–743.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dewitt, B., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., et al. (2018). Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Medical Decision Making, 38(6), 683–698.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index (5th ed.). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.
8.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G., & Maxwell, A. (2016). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 147–159.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2395–2404.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Shorrocks, A. F. (1982). Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, 50(1), 193–211.CrossRef
14.
Juarez, F. C. (2012). SHAPLEY2: Stata module to compute additive decomposition of estimation statistics by regressors or groups of regressors. Statistical Software Components S457543, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 17 Jun 2015.
15.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 411–423.CrossRef
17.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRef
18.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletion, 99(3), 432–442.CrossRef
19.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., Mukuria, C., et al. (2017). An exploratory study on using principal-component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify bolt-on dimensions: The EQ-5D case study. Value in Health, 20(10), 1362–1375.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2019). Selecting bolt-on dimensions for the EQ-5D: Examining their contribution to health-related quality of life. Value in Health, 22(1), 50–61.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mukuria, C., & Brazier, J. (2013). Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data. Social Science & Medicine, 77, 97–105.CrossRef
23.
Cubi-Molla, P., de Vries, J., & Devlin, N. (2014). A study of the relationship between health and subjective well-being in Parkinson’s disease patients. Value in Health, 17(4), 372–379.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Liu, L., Li, S., Zhao, Y., Zhang, J., & Chen, G. (2018). Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1323–1333.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gao, L., Moodie, M., & Chen, G. (2019). Measuring subjective wellbeing in patients with heart disease: relationship and comparison between health-related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 28(4), 1017–1028.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Kaambwa, B., McCaffrey, N., & Richardson, J. (2018). Empirical comparison between capability and two health-related quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, 140(1), 175–190.CrossRef
27.
Skevington, S. M., & Böhnke, J. R. (2018). How is subjective well-being related to quality of life? Do we need two concepts and both measures? Social Science & Medicine, 206, 22–30.CrossRef
28.
Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., et al. (2015). An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value in Health, 18, 52–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Hoogendoorn, M., Oppe, M., Boland, M. R. S., et al. (2019). Exploring the impact of adding a respiratory dimension to the EQ-5D-5L. Medical Decision Making, 39, 393–404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., et al. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1005–1012.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: the empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions
Authors
Gang Chen
Jan Abel Olsen
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02576-5

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

Quality of Life Research 11/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life and physical activity level after a behavior change program at Norwegian healthy life centers: a 15-month follow-up

OriginalPaper

Trend in health-related quality of life and health utility and their decrements due to non-communicable diseases and risk factors: analysis of four population-based surveys between 1998 and 2015

OriginalPaper

Validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the child perceptions questionnaire for 8–10-year-old children

Review

Health-related quality of life overview after different curative treatment options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an umbrella review

OriginalPaper

Known-groups validity and responsiveness to change of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS vs. 2.0): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden

OriginalPaper

Content validity of the ASQoL for use in a non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis population: a qualitative study