Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study

Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Nora Wille, Xavier Badia, Gouke Bonsel, Kristina Burström, Gulia Cavrini, Nancy Devlin, Ann-Charlotte Egmar, Narcis Gusi, Michael Herdman, Jennifer Jelsma, Paul Kind, Pedro R Olivares, Luciana Scalone, Wolfgang Greiner, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Nora Wille, Xavier Badia, Gouke Bonsel, Kristina Burström, Gulia Cavrini, Nancy Devlin, Ann-Charlotte Egmar, Narcis Gusi, Michael Herdman, Jennifer Jelsma, Paul Kind, Pedro R Olivares, Luciana Scalone, Wolfgang Greiner

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the newly developed EQ-5D-Y.

Methods: The EQ-5D-Y was administered in population samples of children and adolescents in Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Percentages of missing values and reported problems were calculated. Test-retest reliability was determined. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients with other generic measures of HRQOL were calculated. Known groups' validity was examined by comparing groups with a priori expected differences in HRQOL.

Results: Between 91 and 100% of the respondents provided valid scorings. Sweden had the lowest proportion of reported problems (1-24.9% across EQ-5D-Y dimensions), with the highest proportions in South Africa (2.8-47.3%) and Italy (4.3-39.0%). Percentages of agreement in test-retest reliability ranged between 69.8 and 99.7% in the EQ-5D-Y dimensions; Kappa coefficients were up to 0.67. Correlation coefficients with other measures of self-rated health indicated convergent validity (up to r = -0.56). Differences between groups classified according to presence of chronic conditions, self-rated overall health and psychological problems provided preliminary evidence of known groups' validity.

Conclusions: Results provide preliminary evidence of the instrument's feasibility, reliability and validity. Further study is required in clinical samples and for possible future applications in economic analyses.

References

    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, Bullinger M. Generic health-related quality of life assessment in children and adolescents: Methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1199–1220. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200624120-00005.
    1. Sullivan M. The new subjective medicine: Taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Social Sciences & Medicine. 2003;56:1595–1604. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00159-4.
    1. Eiser C, Morse R. A review of measures of quality of life for children with chronic illness. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2001;84:205–211. doi: 10.1136/adc.84.3.205.
    1. Clarke S, Eiser C. The measurement of health-related quality of life (QoL) in paediatric clinical trials: A systematic review. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes. 2004;2:66. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-66.
    1. Riley AW. Evidence that school-age children can self-report on their health. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2004;4:371–376. doi: 10.1367/A03-178R.1.
    1. Harter S, Whitesell NR. Developmental changes in children’s understanding of single, multiple and blended emotion concepts. In: Saarni E, Harris PL, editors. Children’s understanding of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. pp. 81–116.
    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. Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burström, K., Cavrini, G., Egmar, A.-C., et al. (2010). Development of the EQ-5D-Y: A child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.
    1. Currie, C., Samdal, O., Boyce, W., et al. (Eds.) (2001). Health behaviour in school-aged children: A WHO Cross-National Study (HBSC), research protocol for the 2001/2002 survey. Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU), University of Edinburgh.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Auquier P, Erhart M, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Bruil J, Power M. The Kidscreen-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescent: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16:1347–1356. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9240-2.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, the European KIDSCREEN Group . The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires—Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents—Handbook. Lengerich: Papst Science Publisher; 2006.
    1. Varni JW, Seid M, Rode CA. The PedsQL: Measurement model for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. Medical Care. 1999;37:126–139. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199902000-00003.
    1. Idler EL, Benyamini Y. Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1997;38:21–37. doi: 10.2307/2955359.
    1. Cantril H. The pattern of human concern. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1965.
    1. Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1997;38:581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.
    1. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1998;7:125–130. doi: 10.1007/s007870050057.
    1. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin. 1968;70:213–220. doi: 10.1037/h0026256.
    1. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973;33:613–619. doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3. New York, NY: McCraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 1988.
    1. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959;56:81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.
    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.
    1. Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health: A comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care. 2003;41:218–231. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200302000-00004.
    1. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D valuation sets: An inventory, comparative review and users’ guide. Rotterdam: EuroQol Foundation, Springer; 2007.
    1. Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2009). A uniform Time Trade Off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the lead time approach. Economics Discussion Paper 09/08, City University. .
    1. Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognising diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Authors Reply. Health Economics. 2002;11:653. doi: 10.1002/hec.736.
    1. Robinson A, Parkin D. Recognising diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. Health Economics. 2002;11:649–651. doi: 10.1002/hec.735.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere