Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in measuring health status of populations in Chinese university staff and students

Authors: Hui Jun Zhou, Aixue Zhang, Jie Wei, Jing Wu, Nan Luo, Pei Wang

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Aims

To compare measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in university staff and students in China.

Methods

A total of 291 staff and 183 undergraduates or postgraduates completed the two instruments assigned in a random order. The health utility scores (HUS) of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 were calculated using the respective value sets for Chinese populations. The agreement of HUSs was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Convergent validity of their HUSs and similar dimensions were assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Known-group validity of the HUSs and EQ-VAS score was assessed by comparing the scores of participants with and without three conditions (i.e., disease, symptom or discomfort, and injury), as well as number of any of the three conditions; their sensitivity was also compared.

Results

The ICCs between the two HUSs were 0.567 (staff) and 0.553 (students). Bland-Altman plot found that EQ-5D-5L HUSs were generally higher. Strong correlation was detected for two similar dimensions (pain/discomfort of EQ-5D-5L and pain of SF-6DV2; anxiety/depression of EQ-5D-5L and mental health of SF-6DV2) in both samples. The correlation between the two HUSs were strong (0.692 for staff and 0.703 for students), and were stronger than their correlations with EQ-VAS score. All the three scores could discriminate the difference in three known-groups (disease, symptom or discomfort, number of any of the three conditions). The two HUSs were more sensitive than EQ-VAS score; and either of them was not superior than the other.

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 HUSs have acceptable measurement properties (convergent validity, known-groups validity, sensitivity) in Chinese university staff and students. Nevetheless, only EQ-5D-5L (PD and AD) and SF-6DV2 (PN and MH) showed indicated good convergent validity as expected. Two types of HUSs cannot be used interchangeably, and each has its own advantages in sensitivity.

Available only for authorised users

Lamu AN, Olsen JA. Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D. Quality of life research. Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2018;27(11):2823–39.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1981-6.CrossRef

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 Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2011;20(3):309–20.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x.CrossRef

Liu GG. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations 2020. Beijing, China: China Market Press; 2020.

Luo N, Wang P, Fu AZ, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Med Care. 2012;50(7):627–32.https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d7471.CrossRefPubMed

Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.CrossRefPubMed

Poór AK, Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulácsi L, Beretzky Z, Hidvégi B, Holló P, Kárpáti S, Péntek M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2017;26(12):3409–19.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.CrossRef

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-5L). Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2011;20(10):1727–36.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRef

Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A systematic review of studies comparing the Measurement Properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):645–61.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zhu J, Yan XX, Liu CC, Wang H, Wang L, Cao SM, Liao XZ, Xi YF, Ji Y, Lei L, Xiao HF, Guan HJ, Wei WQ, Dai M, Chen W, Shi JF. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2021;30(3):841–54.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w.CrossRef

10.

Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1115–28.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00103-6.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brazier JE, Mulhern BJ, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Rowen D, Alonso J, Vilagut G, Ware JE, SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. Developing a New Version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med Care. 2020;58(6):557–65.https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001325.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lam CL, Brazier J, McGhee SM. Valuation of the SF-6D Health States is feasible, Acceptable, Reliable, and valid in a Chinese Population. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2008;11(2):295–303.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00233.x.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Poder TG, Fauteux V, He J et al. Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 dimension version 2. Value Health. 2019;22(7):837–42. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. jval. 2018. 12. 012.

14.

McDool E, Mukuria C, Brazier J. A comparison of the SF-6Dv2 and SF-6D UK Utility values in a mixed patient and healthy Population. PharmacoEconomics. 2021;39(8):929–40.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01033-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Wu J, Xie S, He X, Chen G, Bai G, Feng D, Hu M, Jiang J, Wang X, Wu H, Wu Q, Brazier JE. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health states in China using Time Trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. PharmacoEconomics. 2021;39(5):521–35.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00997-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2016;25(3):707–19.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2.CrossRef

17.

Kangwanrattanakul K. A comparison of measurement properties between UK SF-6D and English EQ-5D-5L and Thai EQ-5D-5L value sets in general Thai population. Expert Rev PharmacoEcon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(4):765–74.https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1829479.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bharmal M, Thomas J 3rd. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2006;9(4):262–71.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00108.x.

19.

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 Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2010;19(6):853–64.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z.CrossRef

20.

Zhao L, Liu X, Liu D, He Y, Liu Z, Li N. Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in the general population of Chengdu city in China. Medicine. 2019;98(11):e14719.https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Sun CY, Liu Y, Zhou LR, Wang MS, Zhao XM, Huang WD, Liu GX, Zhang X. Comparison of EuroQol-5D-3L and short Form-6D utility scores in Family caregivers of Colorectal Cancer patients: a cross-sectional survey in China. Front Public Health. 2021;9:742332.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.742332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Xie S, Wang D, Wu J, Liu C, Jiang W. Comparison of the measurement properties of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese population health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20(1):96.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02003-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Liu C, Wang S, Shen X, Li M, Wang L. The association between organizational behavior factors and health-related quality of life among college teachers: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:85.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0287-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Ge C, Yang X, Fan Y, Kamara AH, Zhang X, Fu J, Wang L. Quality of life among Chinese college teachers: a cross-sectional survey. Public Health. 2011;125(5):308–10.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2011.02.010.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Liu X, Cao X, Gao W. Does low self-esteem predict anxiety among Chinese College Students? Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2022;15:1481–7.https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S361807.CrossRef

26.

Kuczynski AM, Kanter JW, Robinaugh DJ. Differential associations between interpersonal variables and quality-of-life in a sample of college students. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2020;29(1):127–39.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02298-3.CrossRef

27.

Yang X, Ge C, Hu B, Chi T, Wang L. Relationship between quality of life and occupational stress among staff. Public Health. 2009;123(11):750–5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.018.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Lizana PA, Vega-Fernadez G. Teacher teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic: association between work hours, work-Family Balance and Quality of Life. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7566.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147566.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Payakachat N, Gubbins PO, Ragland D, Flowers SK, Stowe CD. Factors associated with health-related quality of life of student pharmacists. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(1):7.https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7817.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

He F, Shen M, Zhao Z, Liu Y, Zhang S, Tang Y, Xie H, Chen X, Li J. Epidemiology and Disease burden of androgenetic alopecia in college freshmen in China: a population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0263912.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263912.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Zhang W, Xie S, Xue F, Liu W, Chen L, Zhang L, Wu J, Yang R. Health-related quality of life among adults with haemophilia in China: a comparison with age-matched general population. Haemophilia: The Official Journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia. 2022;28(5):776–83.https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14615.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2017;20(4):662–9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2014;23(3):977–89.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z.CrossRef

34.

Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, Jo MW. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2012;21(6):1065–73.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.CrossRef

36.

Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, Cieza A, Leidl R. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German Stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2012;21(7):1205–16.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0024-3.CrossRef

37.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (London England). 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Thaweethamcharoen T, Noparatayaporn P, Sritippayawan S, Aiyasanon N. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai patients on peritoneal Dialysis. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2019;18:59–64.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2018.08.005.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med Journal: J Med Association Malawi. 2012;24(3):69–71.

40.

Wu J, Han Y, Zhao FL, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:156.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0156-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Ye Z, Sun L, Wang Q. A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):57.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1137-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Cheung JPY. Differential Psychometric properties of EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level and short-form 6-Dimension Utility measures in Low Back Pain. Spine. 2019;44(11):E679–86.https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002939.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bünger C, Christiansen T. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2009;12(4):606–12.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health. 2011;14(4):531–8.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Yao Q, Liu C, Zhang Y, Xu L. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L in China derived from the 2013 National Health Services Survey. J Global Health. 2021;11:08001.https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.11.08001.CrossRef

46.

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.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Sakthong P, Munpan W. A Head-to-Head comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L value sets in Thai patients with chronic Diseases. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(5):669–79.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Turner N, Campbell J, Peters TJ, Wiles N, Hollinghurst S. A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:81.https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

McColl E, Eccles MP, Rousseau NS, Steen IN, Parkin DW, Grimshaw JM. From the generic to the condition-specific? Instrument order effects in Quality of Life Assessment. Med Care. 2003;41(7):777–90.https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200307000-00002.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in measuring health status of populations in Chinese university staff and students
Authors: Hui Jun Zhou
Aixue Zhang
Jie Wei
Jing Wu
Nan Luo
Pei Wang
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17208-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

Springer Medicine

Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in measuring health status of populations in Chinese university staff and students

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Secular trends in the incidence of major depressive disorder and dysthymia in China from 1990 to 2019

Association between dietary intake of flavonoids and hyperuricemia: a cross-sectional study

Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a culturally informed intervention to decrease stress and promote well-being in reservation-based Native American Head Start teachers

Determinants of catastrophic costs among households affected by multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam: a prospective cohort study

Urgent care-seeking and injury severity for intimate partner violence during COVID-19: a Canadian retrospective chart review

Age-specific transmission dynamics under suppression control measures during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 epidemic