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
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults

Authors: Lara N. Ferreira, Pedro L. Ferreira, Filipa P. Ribeiro, Luis N. Pereira

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Some studies have reported a ceiling effect in EQ-5D-3L, especially in healthy and/or young individuals. Recently, two further levels have been included in its measurement model (EQ-5D-5L). The purposes of this study were (1) to assess the properties of the EQ-5D-5L in comparison with the standard EQ-5D-3L in a sample of young adults, (2) to foreground the importance of collecting qualitative data to confirm, validate or refine the EQ-5D questionnaire items and (3) to raise questions pertaining to the wording in these questionnaire items.

Methods

The data used came from a sample of respondents aged 30 or under (n = 624). They completed both versions of the EQ-5D, which were compared in terms of feasibility, level of inconsistency and ceiling effect. Agreement between the instruments was assessed using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Known-groups validity of the EQ-5D-5L was also assessed using non-parametric tests. The discriminative properties were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves. Finally, four interviews were conducted for retrospective reports to elicit respondents’ understanding and perceptions of the format, instructions, items, and responses.

Results

Quantitative results show a ceiling effect reduction of 25.3 % and a high level agreement between both indices. Known-groups validity was confirmed for the EQ-5D-5L. Explorative interviews indicated ambiguity and low degree of certainty in regards to conceptualizing differences between levels moderate-slight across three dimensions.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L performed better than the EQ-5D-3L. However, the explorative interviews demonstrated several limitations in the EQ-5D questionnaire wording and high context-dependent answers point to lack of illnesses’ experience amongst young adults.
Literature
1.
Rabin R, Charro F, Szende A. Introduction. In: Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N editors. EQ-5D value sets – inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2007. p. 13–19.
2.
Ferreira L, Ferreira P. Health State Values and Country-Specific Value Sets. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2014. p. 2744–9.CrossRef
3.
Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003;41(2):218–31.PubMed
4.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ferreira P, Ferreira L, Pereira L. How Consistent are Health Utility Values? Qual Life Res. 2008;17(7):1031–42.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, Arvanitaki E, Papadopoulos A, Niakas D. Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;12(4):383–91.CrossRef
7.
Barton G, Sach T, Avery A, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes D, Muir K. A Comparison of the Performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged > = 45 years. Health Econ. 2008;17(7):815–32. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​1298.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14(11):1169–89.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):853–64.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos A, Tountas Y, Niakas D. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):87–97.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ferreira L, Ferreira P, Pereira L. Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Medica Port. 2014;27(2):236–45.CrossRef
12.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5 L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard A. Interim Scoring for the EQ-5D-5 L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5 L to EQ-5D-3 L Value Sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kim S, Kim H, Lee S, Jo M. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1065–73.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, Prete A, Cesana G, Mantovani L. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3 L with the new version EQ-5D 5 L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1707–16. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-012-0318-0.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Janssen M, Pickard A, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5 L compared to the EQ-5D-3 L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tran B, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen L. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5 L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(132). doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-10-132.
19.
Janssen M, Birnie E, Haagsma J, Bonsel G. Comparing the Standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–84.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, Gong XH, Zheng H, Wu ZH, Miao N, Sun XJ, Zhang L, Lv JJ, Yang F. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5 L and the EQ-5D-3 L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–63. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-014-0670-3.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K. Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(3):309–20.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
24.
Tenbrink T, Gralla L. Accessing Complex Cognitive Processes via Linguistic Protocol Analysis. In: Schmid U, Ragni M, Knauff M editors. Proceedings of the KI 2009 Workshop on Complex Cognition, Paderborn, Germany; 2009. p. 1–12.
25.
Portuguese Statistical Office. Census 2011 Resultados Definitivos - Portugal. Lisbon: INE; 2012.
26.
National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Portuguese Statistical Office. 4th National Health Inquiry 2005/2006. Lisbon: INSA, INE; 2006.
27.
Titscher S, Meyer M, Wodak R, Vetter E. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis (B. Jenner, Trans.). London and Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.
Metadata
Title
Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults
Authors
Lara N. Ferreira
Pedro L. Ferreira
Filipa P. Ribeiro
Luis N. Pereira
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0491-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Thresholds for clinical importance for four key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain

Research

Where’s WALY? : A proof of concept study of the ‘wellbeing adjusted life year’ using secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data

Research

From early detection to rehabilitation in the community: reading beyond the blog testimonies of survivors’ quality of life and prostate cancer representation

Short report

Semantics bias in cross-national comparative analyses: is it good or bad to have “fair” health?

Research

Victimisation, poly-victimisation and health-related quality of life among high school students in Vietnam: a cross-sectional survey

Research

Assessment of psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the oral anticoagulation knowledge test