Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

11-08-2020

Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population

Auteurs: Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul, Porntip Parmontree

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence for the EQ-5D-5L’s psychometric properties in the general Thai population is limited. This study aimed to compare ceiling effect, discriminatory power, response redistribution, validity, reliability between the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and the EQ-5D-3L (3L) in the general Thai population.

Methods

1200 participants were randomly selected. The Shannon index (\({H}^{{\prime}})\) and Shannon evenness index (\({J}^{{\prime}})\) determining discriminatory power of both EQ-5D versions in each dimension were compared. Test–retest reliability was evaluated using weighted kappa (k) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Validity was evaluated by correlations between similar dimensions of the EQ-5D, WHOQOL-BREF, and SF-12v2 and known-groups validity. The ceiling effects for the 3L and for the 5L were compared.

Results

The 5L had lower ceiling effects than the 3L (49.08% vs 57.17%, p < 0.01). \({H}^{{\prime}}\) was higher for the 5L than for the 3L, but \({J}^{{\prime}}\) showed otherwise. Moderate correlations were detected between similar dimensions of the EQ-5D and the WHOQOL-BREF and SF-12v2. ICCs and k of the 3L were slightly higher than those of the 5L (ICCs: 0.78 vs 0.71) and (k: 0.42–0.63 vs 0.48–0.61), respectively. Older, female participants and those with comorbidities reported a lower utility index for both versions.

Conclusion

Evidence supported use of both EQ-5D versions in the general Thai population. The 5L had better ceiling effects and discriminant activity, while it showed comparable known-groups validity with the 3L. Nevertheless, evidence is limited for the superiority of reliability between these two versions, so more future research is required to investigate it.
vorige artikel Reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance of the PROMIS Physical Function 8b—Adult Short Form v2.0
volgende artikel Responsiveness to change over time and test-retest reliability of the PROMIS and Neuro-QoL mental health measures in persons with Huntington disease (HD)
Literatuur
1.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Oemar, M., & Janssen, B. (2013). EQ-5D-5L user guide-basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument (p. 28). Rotterdam: EuroQol Group.
3.
4.
EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
5.
Rabin, R., & De Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Janssen, M. F., 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.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., 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.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Konig, H. H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six European countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care, 47(2), 255–261.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Rawlins, M. D., & Culyer, A. J. (2004). National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. British Medical Journal, 329(7459), 224–227.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
10.
Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Gold, M. R., Kamlet, M. S., & Russell, L. B. (1996). Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 276(15), 1253–1258.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Sakthong, P. (2008). Measurement of clinical-effect: Utility. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 91(Suppl 2), S43–52.PubMed
12.
Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRef
14.
McCrone, P., Patel, A., Knapp, M., Schene, A., Koeter, M., Amaddeo, F., et al. (2009). A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 12(1), 27–31.PubMed
15.
Petrou, S., Morrell, J., & Spiby, H. (2009). Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Gunawardena, N., & Graves, N. (2019). Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-36) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with chronic kidney disease in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional survey. British Medical Journal Open, 9(2), e024854.
17.
Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.PubMedCrossRef
18.
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.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & 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.PubMedCrossRef
20.
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.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Feng, Y., Devlin, N., & Herdman, M. (2015). Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes, 13, 171.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Sakthong, P., Sonsa-Ardjit, N., Sukarnjanaset, P., & Munpan, W. (2015). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 24(12), 3015–3022.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Pattanaphesaj, J., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ramos-Goni, J. M., Tongsiri, S., Ingsrisawang, L., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2018). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 18(5), 551–558.CrossRef
25.
Tongsiri, S., & Cairns, J. (2011). Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health, 14(8), 1142–1145.PubMedCrossRef
26.
The World Health Orgaization Quality of Life Group. (1998). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585.CrossRef
27.
Mahatnirundkul, S. (1998). Comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF (26 items). Journal of Mental Health of Thailand, 5, 4–15.
28.
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (2002). SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Boston: Health Assessment Lab, QualityMetric Inc.
29.
Chariyalertsak, S., Wansom, T., Kawichai, S., Ruangyuttikarna, C., Kemerer, V., & Wu, A. (2011). Reliability and validity of Thai versions of the MOS-HIV and SF12 quality of life questionnaires in people living with HIV/AIDS. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 1–9.CrossRef
30.
Phantipa, S., Vijj, K., & Win, W.-W. (2017). Assessment of health-related quality of life in Thai patients after heart surgery. Asian Biomedicine, 9(2), 203–210.
31.
Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D., & Gandek, B. (2002). How to score SF-12 items SF-12 v2 How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey, 29–38.
32.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Kang, E. J., & Ko, S. K. (2009). A catalogue of EQ-5D utility weights for chronic diseases among noninstitutionalized community residents in Korea. Value Health, 12(Suppl 3), S114–117.PubMedCrossRef
34.
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.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Cohen, P. (1974). Regression and correlation. In Statistic in medicine. Boston: Litttle Brown and Company.
36.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2(212–236), 22–23.
37.
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlinska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1563.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Jia, Y. X., Cui, F. Q., Li, L., Zhang, D. L., Zhang, G. M., Wang, F. Z., et al. (2014). Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2355–2363.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Poor, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulacsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvegi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Ribeiro, F. P., & Pereira, L. N. (2016). Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 89.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
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, 36(6), 645–661.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
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, 309(5), 357–370.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Pan, C. W., Sun, H. P., Wang, X., Ma, Q., Xu, Y., Luo, N., et al. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1767–1774.PubMedCrossRef
44.
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.PubMedCrossRef
45.
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.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Martí-Pastor, M., Pont, A., Ávila, M., Garin, O., Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., et al. (2018). Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics, 16(1), 14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Conner-Spady, B. L., Marshall, D. A., Bohm, E., Dunbar, M. J., Loucks, L., Al Khudairy, A., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1775–1784.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. The European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kangwanrattanakul, K., Gross, C. R., Sunantiwat, M., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2019). Adding two culture-specific 'bolt-on' dimensions on the Thai version of EQ-5D-5L: an exploratory study in patients with diabetes. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 19(3), 321–329.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Kangwanrattanakul, K., & Auamnoy, T. (2019). Psychometric testing of the health-related quality of life measurement, SF-36v2, in the general population of Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 19(3), 313–320.CrossRef
51.
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
52.
Marx, R. G., Menezes, A., Horovitz, L., Jones, E. C., & Warren, R. F. (2003). A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(8), 730–735.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population
Auteurs
Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul
Porntip Parmontree
Publicatiedatum
11-08-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02595-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2020

Quality of life in a real-world cohort of advanced breast cancer patients: a study of the SONABRE Registry

  • Open Access

An assessment of symptom burden in inflammatory bowel diseases to develop a patient preference-weighted symptom score

Registered Reports: a process to safeguard high-quality evidence

  • Letter to the Editor

Underlying dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a Cuban population of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

  • Brief Communication

Peripheral neuropathy and depressive symptoms: examining the association in a primary health care setting among persons with and without diabetes mellitus

Health-related quality of life in patients with non-functioning pituitary adenoma: a special focus on hydrocortisone replacement dose