Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study

M F Janssen, A Simon Pickard, Dominik Golicki, Claire Gudex, Maciej Niewada, Luciana Scalone, Paul Swinburn, Jan Busschbach, M F Janssen, A Simon Pickard, Dominik Golicki, Claire Gudex, Maciej Niewada, Luciana Scalone, Paul Swinburn, Jan Busschbach

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the 5-level classification system of the EQ-5D (5L), in comparison with the 3-level EQ-5D (3L).

Methods: Participants (n = 3,919) from six countries, including eight patient groups with chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, depression, diabetes, liver disease, personality disorders, arthritis, and stroke) and a student cohort, completed the 3L and 5L and, for most participants, also dimension-specific rating scales. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of feasibility (missing values), redistribution properties, ceiling, discriminatory power, convergent validity, and known-groups validity.

Results: Missing values were on average 0.8% for 5L and 1.3% for 3L. In total, 2.9% of responses were inconsistent between 5L and 3L. Redistribution from 3L to 5L using EQ dimension-specific rating scales as reference was validated for all 35 3L-5L-level combinations. For 5L, 683 unique health states were observed versus 124 for 3L. The ceiling was reduced from 20.2% (3L) to 16.0% (5L). Absolute discriminatory power (Shannon index) improved considerably with 5L (mean 1.87 for 5L versus 1.24 for 3L), and relative discriminatory power (Shannon Evenness index) improved slightly (mean 0.81 for 5L versus 0.78 for 3L). Convergent validity with WHO-5 was demonstrated and improved slightly with 5L. Known-groups validity was confirmed for both 5L and 3L.

Conclusions: The EQ-5D-5L appears to be a valid extension of the 3-level system which improves upon the measurement properties, reducing the ceiling while improving discriminatory power and establishing convergent and known-groups validity.

References

    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. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:365–384. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002.
    1. Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, et al. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine. 2011;28:395–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, et al. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine. 2008;102:519–536. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.
    1. Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, et al. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.
    1. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta. Canada. Med Care. 2000;38:115–121. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.
    1. Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research. 1998;7:155–166. doi: 10.1023/A:1008809610703.
    1. Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health - A comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care. 2003;41:218–231.
    1. Wu AW, Jacobson KL, Frick KD, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research. 2002;11:273–282. doi: 10.1023/A:1015240103565.
    1. Myers C, Wilks D. Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Quality of Life Research. 1999;8:9–16. doi: 10.1023/A:1026459027453.
    1. van de Willige G, Wiersma D, Nienhuis FJ, et al. Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric patients: a comparison between EuroQol (EQ-5D) and WHOQoL. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14:441–451. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0689-y.
    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. Houle C, Bertheloth CM, Health Analysis and Modeling Group Head-to-Head Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the Population Living in Private Households in Canada. Quality of Life Newsletter. 2000;24:5–6.
    1. Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, et al. Using the EuroQol-5D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research. 1998;7:311–322. doi: 10.1023/A:1008894502042.
    1. Wang H, Kindig DA, Mullahy J. Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: results from a EuroQol study in Beijing. China. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:119–132. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsychiya A. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics. 2004;13:873–884. doi: 10.1002/hec.866.
    1. Kaarlola A, Pettila V, Kekki P. Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Medicine. 2004;30:2245–2252. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2471-6.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Quality of Life Research. 2011;20:1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, et al. 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, et al. 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 two methods. Quality of Life Research. 2008;17:463–473. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5.
    1. Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research. 2011;21:1065–1073. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.
    1. Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 1996;65:183–190. doi: 10.1159/000289073.
    1. Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12:85–91. doi: 10.1002/mpr.145.
    1. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27:379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.
    1. Krebs CJ. Ecological methodology. New York: Harper & Row; 1989.
    1. Rao GS, Hamid Z, Rao JS. The information content of DNA and evolution. J Theor Biology. 1979;81:803–807. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(79)90282-0.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16:895–904. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6.
    1. Polinder S, Haagsma JA, Bonsel G, et al. The measurement of long-term health-related quality of life after injury: comparison of EQ-5D and the health utilities index. Inj Prev. 2010;16:147–153. doi: 10.1136/ip.2009.022418.
    1. Shannon CE, Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1949.
    1. Datta, S., Satten, G. A. Rank-sum tests for clustered data. J Am Stat Assoc 100, 908–915.
    1. Datta S, Satten GA. A signed-rank test for clustered data. Biometrics, 64, 501–507.
    1. van Hout BA, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться