The validity of the EQ-5D-3L items: an investigation with type 2 diabetes patients from six European countries

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

MF Bas Janssen³  Elpida Pavi¹  Tomi Malmström⁷  Paul Forte⁴  Raquel Faubel²  Sylvia G Elkhuizen⁵  Uwe Konerding⁶ 

[1] Department of Health Economics, National School of Public Health, 196 Alexandras Ave, Athens, 115 21, Greece;Joint Research Unit in Biomedical Engineering, IIS La Fe- Universitat Politècnica de València, Bulevar sur s/n, Valencia, 46026, Spain;Department of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology & Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands;The Balance of Care Group, 39a Cleveland Road, London N1 3ES, UK;Institute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam 3000, DR, The Netherlands;Trimberg Research Academy, University of Bamberg, Bamberg D-96045, Germany;Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Espoo 00076, Aalto, Finland

关键词: Methodology;    Inter-country;    Validity;    EQ-5D-3L;    Health-related quality of life;   

Others  :  1144230
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0181-5

 received in 2014-06-20, accepted in 2014-11-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Most previous studies concerning the validity of the EQ-5D-3L items refer to applications of only a single language version of the EQ-5D-3L in only one country. Therefore, there is little information concerning the extent to which the results can be generalised across different language versions and/or different countries. Here the validity of the EQ-5D-3L items is investigated for six different language versions in six different countries.

Methods

Data came from 1341 type 2 diabetes patients (England: 289; Finland: 177; Germany: 255; Greece: 165; the Netherlands: 354; Spain: 101). The relationships of the five EQ-5D-3L items with seven different test variables (age, gender, education, previous stroke, problems with heart, problems with lower extremities, problems with eyes), were analysed for each combination of item and test variable. For each combination two logistic regression models with the dichotomised EQ-5D-3L item as dependent variable were computed. The first model contained the test variable and dummy coded countries as independent variables, the second model additionally the terms for the interaction between country and test variable. Statistically significant better fit of the second model was taken as evidence for country specific differences regarding the relationship. When such differences could be attributed mainly to one country the analyses were repeated without the data from this country. Validity was investigated with the remaining data using results of the first models.

Results

Due to lack of variation in the Spanish data only 31 of the originally intended 35 interaction tests could be performed. Only three of these yielded a significant result. In all three cases the Spanish data deviated most. Without the Spanish data only 1 of the 35 interaction tests yielded a significant result. With 3 exceptions, the tendency of reporting problems increased with age, female gender, lower education, previous stroke, heart problems, problems with lower extremities and problems with eyes for all EQ-5D-3L items.

Conclusion

The results concerning the European Spanish version are ambiguous. However, the items of the English, Finnish, German, Greek and Dutch versions of the EQ-5D-3L relate in substantially the same way to the test variables. Mostly, these relationships indicate the items’ validity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Konerding et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]EuroQol: The current state of play Health Policy 1996, 37(1):53-72.
• [2]Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):337-343.
• [3]Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ: Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006, 9:213-218.
• [4][http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-products/eq-5d-3l.html] webcite EuroQol Group: EQ-5D-3L. . Accessed June 10th 2014.
• [5]Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N: EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2007.
• [6]Aburuz S, Bulatova N, Twalbeh M, Gazawi M: The validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the EQ-5D: a study from Jordan. Ann Saudi Med 2009, 29(4):304-308.
• [7]Brettschneider C, König HH, Herzog W, Kaufmann C, Schaefert R, Konnopka A: Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with somatoform disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, Cieza A, Leidl R: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res 2012, 21(7):1205-1216.
• [9]König HH, Born A, Günther O, Matschinger H, Heinrich S, Riedel-Heller SG, Angermeyer MC, Roick C: Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:47. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]König HH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC: Validity of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with schizophrenic, schizotypal or delusional disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2007, 22(3):177-187.
• [11]Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Niakas D, Yfantopoulos J, Dimitrakaki C, Tountas Y: Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health 2008, 11(7):1162-1169.
• [12]Luo N, Low S, Lau PN, Au WL, Tan LC: Is EQ-5D a valid quality of life instrument in patients with Parkinson's disease? A study in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2009, 38(6):521-528.
• [13]Öster C, Willebrand M, Dyster-Aas J, Kildal M, Ekselius L: Validation of the EQ-5D questionnaire in burn injured adults. Burns 2009, 35(5):723-732.
• [14]Savoia E, Fantini MP, Pandolfi PP, Dallolio L, Collina N: Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:47. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Shafie AA, Hassali MA, Liau SY: A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Qual Life Res 2011, 20(4):593-600.
• [16]Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, König HH: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010, 16(1):42-51.
• [17]Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K: Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res 2011, 20(3):309-320.
• [18]Faridah A, Jamaiyah H, Goh A, Soraya A: The validation of the EQ-5D in Malaysian dialysis patients. Med J Malaysia 2010, 65(Suppl A):114-119.
• [19]König HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H, Martinez M, Vilagut G, Haro JM, de Girolamo G, de Graaf R, Kovess V, Alonso J: Comparison of population health status in six european countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care 2009, 47(2):255-261.
• [20]Wang HM, Patrick DL, Edwards TC, Skalicky AM, Zeng HY, Gu WW: Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Qual Life Res 2012, 21(1):155-160.
• [21]Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Robbins SL, Cotran RS: Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. 7th edition. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa; 2005.
• [22]Melmed S, Polonsky K, Larsen PR, Kronenberg H, Williams : Textbook of Endocrinology. 12th edition. Elsevier/Saunders, Philadelphia; 2011.
• [23][http://www.youtube.com/feed/UCGR1TTllCKmp-FHKH6cEAcg] webcite Managed Outcomes Consortium: Managed Outcomes. . Accessed 30 May 2014
• [24]Nagelkerke NJD: A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of Determination. Biometrika 1991, 78(3):691-692.
• [25]Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG: Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality-of-life measures used in utility assessment: evidence from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care 2010, 48(8):718-725.
• [26]Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK: An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Med Care 1997, 35(5):522-537.
• [27]Konerding U, Moock J, Kohlmann T: The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common? Qual Life Res 2009, 18(9):1249-1261.
• [28]Dupre ME: Educational differences in age-related patterns of disease: reconsidering the cumulative disadvantage and age-as-leveler hypotheses. J Health Soc Behav 2007, 48(1):1-15.
• [29]Dupre ME: Educational differences in health risks and illness over the life course: a test of cumulative disadvantage theory. Soc Sci Res 2008, 37(4):1253-1266.
• [30]Khang YH, Lynch JW, Kaplan GA: Health inequalities in Korea: age- and sex-specific educational differences in the 10 leading causes of death. Int J Epidemiol 2004, 33(2):299-308.
• [31]Silventoinen K, Lahelma E: Health inequalities by education and age in four Nordic countries, 1986 and 1994. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56(4):253-258.
• [32]Ayerbe L, Ayis S, Wolfe CD, Rudd AG: Natural history, predictors and outcomes of depression after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2013, 202(1):14-21.
• [33]Mitchell AJ, Ferguson DW, Gill J, Paul J, Symonds P: Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013, 14(8):721-732.
• [34]Roy T, Lloyd CE: Epidemiology of depression and diabetes: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2012, 142(Suppl):S8-21.
• [35]Arber S, Cooper H: Gender differences in health in later life: the new paradox? Soc Sci Med 1999, 48:61-76.
• [36]Frederiksen H, Hjelmborg J, Mortensen J, McGue M, Vaupel JW, Christensen K: Age trajectories of grip strength: cross-sectional and longitudinal data among 8,342 Danes aged 46 to 102. Ann Epidemiol 2006, 16:554-562.
• [37]Leveille SG, Penninx BW, Melzer D, Izmirlian G, Guralnik JM: Sex differences in the prevalence of mobility disability in old age: the dynamics of incidence, recovery, and mortality. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2000, 55:S41-S50.
• [38]Nybo H, Gaist D, Jeune B, McGue M, Vaupel JW, Christensen K: Functional status and self-rated health in 2,262 nonagenarians: The Danish 1905 Cohort Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001, 49:601-609.
• [39]Helgeson VS: Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles 1994, 31:n11-12. 653–682