Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Montarat Thavorncharoensap¹  Juntana Pattanaphesaj¹ 

[1]Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), 6th Floor, 6th Building, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, Tiwanon Rd., Muang 11000, Nonthaburi, Thailand

关键词: Psychometrics;    Measurement properties;    Health-related quality of life;    EQ-5D-5L;    EQ-5D-3L;    Diabetic;   

Others  :  1133872
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3

 received in 2014-07-02, accepted in 2014-12-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The EQ-5D is a health-related quality of life instrument which provides a simple descriptive health profile and a single index value for health status. The latest version, the EQ-5D-5L, has been translated into more than one hundred languages worldwide - including Thai. This study aims to assess the measurement properties of the Thai version of the EQ-5D-5L (the 5L) compared to the EQ-5D-3L (the 3L).

Methods

A total of 117 diabetes patients treated with insulin completed a questionnaire including the 3L and the 5L. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of distribution, ceiling, convergent validity, discriminative power, test-retest reliability, feasibility, and patient preference. Convergent validity was tested by assessing the relationship between each dimension of the EQ-5D and SF-36v2 using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Discriminative power was determined by the Shannon index (H ′) and Shannon’s Evenness index (J ′). The test-retest reliability was assessed by examining the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s weighted kappa coefficient.

Results

No inconsistent response was found. The 5L trended towards a slightly lower ceiling compared with the 3L (33% versus 29%). Regarding redistribution, 69% to 100% of the patients answering level 2 with the 3L version redistributed their responses to level 2 with the 5L version while about 9% to 22% redistributed their responses to level 3 with the 5L version. The Shannon index (H ′) improved with the 5L while the Shannon's Evenness index (J ′) reduced slightly. Convergent validity and test-retest reliability was confirmed for both 3L and 5L.

Conclusions

Evidence supported the convergent validity and test-retest reliability of both the 3L and 5L in diabetes patients. However, the 5L is more promising compared to the 3L in terms of a lower ceiling, more discriminatory power, and higher preference by the respondents. Thus, the 5L should be recommended as a preferred health-related quality of life measure in Thailand.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Pattanaphesaj and Thavorncharoensap; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Williams A: The EuroQol instrument. In EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Edited by KIND P, BROOKS R, RABIN R. Springer, Dordrecht; 2005:1-17.
• [2]Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33:337-43.
• [3]Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ: National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004, 329:224-7.
• [4]Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996, 276:1253-8.
• [5]Sakthong P: Measurement of clinical-effect: utility. J Med Assoc Thai 2008, 91(Suppl 2):S43-52.
• [6]EQ-5D-3L. [http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-products/eq-5d-3l.html]
• [7]Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P: Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:169-80.
• [8]Johnson JA, Coons SJ: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998, 7:155-66.
• [9]Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V: A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 2005, 43:736-49.
• [10]Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M: Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res 1998, 7:311-22.
• [11]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 Med 2004, 30:2245-52.
• [12]Houle C, Berthelot J-M: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Health Utilities Mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the Population Living in Private Households in Canada. Qual Life Newsletter 2000, 24:5-6.
• [13]Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1727-36.
• [14]Oemar M, Janssen B: EQ-5D-5L user guide. EuroQol Group, Rotterdam; 2013.
• [15]Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ: Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 2008, 11:275-84.
• [16]Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S: Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 2007, 45:259-63.
• [17]EQ-5D-5L. [http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-products/eq-5d-5l.html]
• [18]Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al.: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1717-27.
• [19]Craig BM, Pickard AS, Lubetkin EI: Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67:93-9.
• [20]Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al.: Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1707-16.
• [21]Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, Jo MW: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res 2012, 21:1065-73.
• [22]Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT: Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012, 10:132. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, Kim SH, Chung SM: Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:2245-53.
• [24]Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, et al.: Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res 2014, 23:2355-63.
• [25]Cabasés JM, Errea M, Hernández-Arenaz I: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L between mental and somatic chronic patients populations. Department of Economics, Public University of Navarra, Spain; 2013.
• [26]van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012, 15:708-15.
• [27]Tongsiri S, Cairns J: Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health 2011, 14:1142-5.
• [28]Kimman M, Vathesatogkit P, Woodward M, Tai ES, Thumboo J, Yamwong S, et al.: Validity of the Thai EQ-5D in an occupational population in Thailand. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1499-506.
• [29]Leurmarnkul W, Meetam P: Properties testing of the retranslated SF-36 (Thai version). Thai J Pharm Sci 2005, 29:69-88.
• [30]Lim LL, Seubsman SA, Sleigh A: Thai SF-36 health survey: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity in healthy men and women. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-83.
• [32]Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R: How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Edited by Spilker B. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia; 1995:49-56.
• [33]Bas 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. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:895-904.
• [34]Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC: The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA; 2004.
• [35]Laver-Fawcett A: Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists: theory, skills and application. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., London; 2007.
• [36]Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hrobjartsson A, et al.: Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:96-106.
• [37]Rubin RR, Peyrot M: Quality of life and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 1999, 15:205-18.
• [38]Jacobson AM, Groot MD, Samson JA: The evaluation of two measures of quality of life in patients with type I and type II diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994, 17:267-74.
• [39]Bundhamcharoen K, Odton P, Phulkerd S, Tangcharoensathien V: Burden of disease in Thailand: changes in health gap between 1999 and 2004. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R: A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:71. BioMed Central Full Text