Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)

M Herdman, C Gudex, A Lloyd, Mf Janssen, P Kind, D Parkin, G Bonsel, X Badia, M Herdman, C Gudex, A Lloyd, Mf Janssen, P Kind, D Parkin, G Bonsel, X Badia

Abstract

Purpose: This article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure.

Methods: EQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument's sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions.

Results: Selecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording 'slight-moderate-severe' problems, with anchors of 'no problems' and 'unable to do' in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states.

Conclusions: A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.

References

    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care. 2005;43:736–749. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000172050.67085.4f.
    1. Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research. 1998;7:311–322. doi: 10.1023/A:1008894502042.
    1. Devlin N, Hansen P, Herbison P. Variations in self-reported health status: Results from a New Zealand survey. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2000;113:517–520.
    1. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care. 2000;38:115–121. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.
    1. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736–741. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736.
    1. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care. 2005;43:1078–1086. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1.
    1. Wang H, Kindig DA, Mullahy J. Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14:119–132. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6.
    1. Agt HM, van Bonsel GJ. The number of levels in the descriptive system. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. pp. 29–33.
    1. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2005;46:4016–4023. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0072.
    1. Kaplan R.M., Tally S., Hays R.D., Feeny D., Ganiats T.G., Palta M., et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64:497–506. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.010.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ–5D three level system with a five level version. Value Health. 2008;11:275–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.
    1. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care. 2007;45:259–263. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three level system and a five level version according to 2 methods. Quality of Life Research. 2008;17:463–473. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5.
    1. Pickard AS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Rosenbloom S, Cella D. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: Application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Medical Care. 2007;45:812–819. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31805371aa.
    1. Lissitz RW, Green SB. Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975;60:10–13. doi: 10.1037/h0076268.
    1. Nishisato S, Torii Y. Effects of categorizing continuous normal variables on the product-moment correlation. Japanese Psychology Research. 1970;13:45–49.
    1. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica. 2000;104:1–15. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.
    1. Szabo S. World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) assessment instrument. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and of life and pharmaeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. pp. 355–362.
    1. Keller SD, Ware JE, Jr, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al. Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1998;51:933–944. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5.
    1. Grbich Carol. Qualitative research in health: An introduction. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin; 1999.
    1. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine. 2001;33:337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.
    1. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. The British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1999;72(Pt 1):51–61. doi: 10.1348/000711299159817.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe