Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To determine the psychometric properties and performance of Malay and English versions of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive instrument in the general Malaysian population.
1137 members of the Malaysian general public were sampled in this national study. Respondents were recruited by quota sampling of urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity. In face-to-face interviews, respondents first answered the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered using the EQ-Valuation Technology software, and then completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire on paper. A subgroup of the respondents were given paper form of EQ-5D-5L for completion within 2 weeks for test–retest reliability. Ceiling effects, response redistribution, informativity, and convergent validity were compared between EQ-5D-5L and ED-5D-3L separately by Malay and English language versions.
The proportion of ‘full health’ responses (11111) drastically decreased by 25.55% and 15.74% in the Malay and English language versions indicating lower ceiling effects in EQ-5D-5L. Inconsistencies from response redistribution was below 6% for all dimensions across languages. The measure of relative informativity was comparatively higher in EQ-5D-5L than in EQ-5D-3L in both language versions, with the exception of dimensions mobility and pain/discomfort in the English version. Convergent validity in terms of correlation with EQ-VAS was relatively better for EQ-5D-5L dimensions, with pain/discomfort of the Malay version having the strongest correlation (|r| = 0.37). Also, reliability testing revealed moderate to poor agreements on all 5L dimensions.
EQ-5D-5L fared better in terms of psychometric performance compared to EQ-5D-3L for both language versions. This encourages the application of the EQ-5D-5L in health-related research in Malaysia.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Gudex, C. (2006). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 19–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value in Health, 11(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x. CrossRef
Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.
Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y.-S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.
Shafie, A. A. (2014). EuroQol 5-Dimension measures in Malaysia. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2041–2044). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Varatharajan, S., & Chen, W.-S. (2011). Reliability and validity of EQ-5D in Malaysian population. Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-011-9156-4.
Oppe, M., & Van Hout, B. (2017). The ‘‘power’’ of eliciting EQ-5D-5L values: the experimental design of the EQ-VT. EuroQol Working Paper Series, 17003.
Department of Statistics Malaysia Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010. https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09.
Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication theory of secrecy systems. Bell System Technical Journal, 28(4), 656–715. CrossRef
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.
Faridah, A., Jamaiyah, H., Goh, A., & Soraya, A. (2010). The validation of the EQ-5D in Malaysian dialysis patients. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 65(Suppl A), 114–119.
Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.011. CrossRef
Kim, T. H., Jo, M.-W., Lee, S., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 2245–2253. CrossRef
Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S., & Jo, M.-W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073. CrossRef
Janssen, M., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. CrossRef
Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y.-S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x. CrossRef
Greene, M. E., Rader, K. A., Garellick, G., Malchau, H., Freiberg, A. A., & Rolfson, O. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 473(11), 3383–3390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4091-y. CrossRef
Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2.
Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1707–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0. CrossRef
Bagattini, ÂM., Camey, S. A., Miguel, S. R., Andrade, M. V., de Souza Noronha, K. V. M., de M. A. D. C. Teixeira, et al (2018). Electronic version of the EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire: Adaptation to a Brazilian population sample. Value in Health Regional Issues, 17, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2017.11.002. CrossRef
Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x. doi. CrossRef
Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality Of Life Research: An International Journal Of Quality Of Life Aspects Of Treatment, Care And Rehabilitation, 25(3), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8. CrossRef
- Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population
Asrul Akmal Shafie
Annushiah Vasan Thakumar
Ching Jou Lim
- Springer International Publishing