基于中国普通人群的EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L比较研究

目的:对EQ-5D-3L与EQ-5D-5L量表在中国普通人群中的差异进行比较分析。方法:样本来自北京、成都、南京、沈阳的城市和农村居民,对两种量表的天花板效应、再分布情况和信息区分能力进行分析,并探索这三个方面在城乡居民之间的差异。结果:天花板效应方面,EQ-5D-5L量表选择完全健康状态比例为60.50%,低于EQ-5D-3L的72.08%,并且,这种改善主要体现在"疼痛/不舒服"与"焦虑/抑郁"两个维度。城市和农村的天花板效应分别下降了12.94%和10.21%。再分布方面,两种量表总体不一致率为6.93%,不一致情况主要集中在"疼痛/不舒服"和"焦虑/抑郁"维度。不一致率在农村为8.96%,高于城市的4.93%。信息区分能力方面,EQ-5D-5L量表各个维度Shannon指数均大于3L,说明其信息区分能力更好,农村与城市样本中得到了一致的发现。结论:EQ-5D-5L量表能够降低天花板效应并提高健康状态的辨别能力,开展生命质量研究时应根据两种量表的优势和特点,进行合理选择。     

基于中国四类人群的EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L量表比较分析

  目的  分别在高血压、糖尿病、慢性肝炎患者和普通人群中,比较EQ-5D-3L和EQ-5D-5L量表的差异。  方法  用两量表对四类人群进行调查,比较两量表测量结果的一致性、再分布不一致性和信息区分能力。  结果  四类人群中,两量表效用值的组内相关系数均>0.7;EQ-5D-5L与EQ-5D-3L量表相比,天花板效应降幅分别为5.8%、8.3%、9.2%和17.3%;两量表五个维度的平均再分布不一致率分别为5.5%、7.6%、5.7%和2.2%,不一致情况主要集中在疼痛/不舒服和焦虑/抑郁两个维度;在四类人群中,除普通人群的自我照顾维度外,其余维度EQ-5D-5L量表的Shannon指数均优于EQ-5D-3L量表;Shannon均匀指数方面,在行动能力维度上四类人群均是EQ-5D-5L量表的值较大,两量表在其他四个维度对应的数值各有高低。  结论  在慢病人群中,EQ-5D-5L量表额外增加水平体现出其应有的优势,并能提高受访者对量表中健康状态的辨别能力,而在普通人群中EQ-5D-3L量表已能够满足研究需要。     

Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease

Quality of Life Research - The EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) is the most commonly used instrument to obtain utility values for cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for...     

构建EQ-5D-5L量表效用积分体系的国际研究现状分析

为降低天花板效应,增强对较轻健康状态的区分能力,欧洲生命质量小组在EQ-5D-3L量表的基础上开发出新的EQ-5D-5L量表。EQ-5D量表的测量结果需通过效用积分体系转化成健康效用值,目前,加拿大、西班牙、英国、乌拉圭、韩国及荷兰已构建起基于本国人群健康偏好的EQ-5D-5L效用积分体系。通过对上述国家构建的研究方案、测量方法、健康状态选取、样本估计、数据处理及模型结果等进行介绍和比较,以此为中国EQ-5D-5L积分体系的构建提供参考。     

How different are composite and traditional TTO valuations of severe EQ-5D-5L states?

Quality of Life Research - Different variants of time trade-off (TTO) have been employed to elicit health state preferences and to create value sets for preference-based instruments. We compared...     

基于EQ-5D-3L和ICECAP-A量表的我国普通人群生命质量研究

目的:分析EQ-5D-3L和ICECAP-A量表评价我国普通人群生命质量的差异以及对干预方案价值评价的影响,为研究者选择合适的生命质量测量工具提供参考。方法:采用配额抽样选取802名受访者进行生命质量评价,并分别采用因子分析、多分格相关性和Bland-Altman plot一致性分析等方法探讨两量表测量结果的差异。结果:Wilcoxon秩和检验表明EQ-5D-3L量表的健康效用均值高于ICECAP-A量表的测量结果;ICECAP-A量表五个维度均主要加载于反映社会心理健康的因子1,而EQ-5D-3L量表的大部分维度主要加载于反映生理健康的因子2。部分维度之间也存在显著的相关性,但均较弱。两量表效用值的ICC为0.32,一致性分析显示5.74%的受访者超出了95%的一致性界限。结论:前者的测量内涵是健康相关生命质量,而后者则反映的是幸福感、可行能力等更广义的生命质量,其对于旨在提升公众广义幸福感和社会福祉的干预措施效果评估方面具有较好的适用性。研究者可根据测量目的及量表属性选择合适的量表,鉴于两个量表在测量内涵中的互补性,也可以在研究中同时采用两种量表以便更全面地反映干预措施的效果或受访者的生命质量。     

EQ-5D-3L两种积分效用体系对成都市城镇居民的适用性评价

目的通过比较英国与中国EQ-5D-3L两种积分效用体系对成都市城镇居民生命质量健康效用值的评价,探讨两种体系对研究对象的适用性。方法用EQ-5D量表测量患者的生命质量,数据用SPSS 19.0进行统计分析。结果通过spearmen相关矩阵分析得出两种积分体系具有高度的相关性,所得健康指数的分布均为偏态分布,但是相较于英国的积分体系,中国积分体系模型拟合优度的R2、F值比英国高,且AIC值与BIC值低于英国。结论相比于英国的效用积分体系,我国的积分体系对研究人群健康效用评价有更好的适用性。     

基于EQ-5D-5L量表的甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量及其影响因素分析*

目的：评价甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量现状并分析其影响因素，为改善甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者的生命质量提供参考建议。方法：使用欧洲五维健康 （EQ-5D-5L） 量表并采用线上调查的形式对符合纳入排除标准的甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者进行调查，采用单因素方差分析和多水平线性回归分析影响因素。结果：甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者健康效用值均值为 （0.708± 0.298），健康状况自评问卷与视觉模拟标尺评分 （EQ Visual analogue scale，EQ-VAS） 均值为 （65.45±27.82） 分，性别、年龄、户籍类型、婚姻状态、家庭平均年收入、颈部暴露史、甲状腺癌家族史、结节/肿瘤性质对甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者健康效用值和EQ-VAS量表的影响，差异具有统计学意义 （P＜0.05）。结论：甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者生命质量偏低，应综合考虑影响生命质量的各种因素，提升患者生理机能和心理弹性，改善甲状腺结节/肿瘤患者的生命质量。     

Mapping EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L

ObjectivesThe original 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) includes 5 dimensions with 3 levels of problems per dimension. Since 2010, a more sensitive version with 5 levels of problems per dimension (EQ-5D-5L) has become available. Population value sets have been developed for both versions of the questionnaire. The objective of this research was to develop a mapping function to link EQ-5D-3L responses to value sets for the EQ-5D-5L.MethodsVarious algorithms were developed to link EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L responses using data from an observational study including members of 10 subgroups (N = 3580) who completed both versions of the questionnaire. Nonparametric and ordinal logistic regression models were fit to the data and compared using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) as well as the mean absolute error and root mean squared error of predictions. Results were contrasted qualitatively and quantitatively with those of an alternative copula-based approach.ResultsIncluding indicants of problems for other EQ-5D-3L dimensions as regressors in the modeling yielded the greatest improvement in prediction accuracy. Adding age and gender lowered the AIC without improving predictions, while including a latent factor lowered the AIC further and slightly improved predictive accuracy. Models that conditioned on problems in other EQ-5D-3L dimensions yielded more accurate predictions than the alternative copula-based approach in subgroups defined by age and gender.ConclusionWe present novel algorithms to map EQ-5D-3L responses to EQ-5D-5L value sets. The recommended approach is based on an ordinal logistic regression that disregards age and gender and accounts for unobserved heterogeneity using a latent factor.     

Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to compare psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and the EQ-5D-3L (3L) health outcomes assessment instruments in patients with hepatitis B in China.

Methods

Patients, including hepatitis B virus carriers and those with active or inactive chronic hepatitis B, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma, answered a questionnaire composed of 5L, socio-demographic information, 3L, and the visual analog scale (VAS), respectively. After 1 week, a retest was conducted for inpatients. We compared acceptability, face validity, redistribution properties, convergent validity, known-group validity, discriminatory power, ceiling effect, test–retest reliability, and responsiveness of 5L and 3L.

Results

A total of 369 outpatients and 276 inpatients were recruited for the first interview. Of the inpatients, 183 were used in the retest. Most patients preferred 5L–3L. The 3L–5L response pairs had an inconsistency rate of 2.4 %. Correlation with the VAS was greater with 5L than with 3L. Age, education, and comorbidity were associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL). 5L discriminated more infectious conditions than 3L. In all dimensions, the Shannon’s index from 5L was larger while in three dimensions the Shannon’s evenness index from 5L was slightly larger. The ceiling effect was reduced in 5L. In patients with stable health states, no significant difference was detected in the weighted kappa between 5L and 3L, but intraclass correlation coefficient of 5L was higher than that of 3L. In patients with improved health states, HRQoL was seen as increased in both 5L and 3L, without significant difference.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L was more suitable than the EQ-5D-3L in the patients with hepatitis B in China.     

Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys

Background

The EQ-5D has been frequently used in national health surveys. This study is a head-to-head comparison to assess how expanding the number of levels from three (EQ-5D-3L) to five in the new EQ-5D-5L version has improved its distribution, discriminatory power, and validity in the general population.

Methods

A representative sample (N?=?7554) from the Catalan Health Interview Survey 2011–2012, aged ≥18, answered both EQ-5D versions, and we evaluated the response redistribution and inconsistencies between them. To assess validity of this redistribution, we calculated the mean of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which measures perceived health. The discriminatory power was examined with Shannon Indices, calculated for each dimension separately. Spanish preference value sets were applied to obtain utility indices, examining their distribution with statistics of central tendency and dispersion. We estimated the proportion of individuals reporting the best health state in EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L within groups of specific chronic conditions and their VAS mean.

Results

A very small reduction in the percentage of individuals with the best health state was observed, from 61.8% in EQ-5D-3L to 60.8% in EQ-5D-5L. In contrast, a large proportion of individuals reporting extreme problems in the 3 L version moved to severe problems (level 4) in the 5 L version, particularly for pain/discomfort (75.5%) and anxiety/depression (66.4%). The average proportion of inconsistencies was 0.9%. The pattern of the perceived health VAS mean confirmed the hypothesis established a priori, supporting the validity of the observed redistribution. Shannon index showed that absolute informativity was higher in the 5 L version for all dimensions. The means (SD) of the Spanish EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L indices were 0.87 (0.25) and 0.89 (0.22). The proportion of individuals with the best health state within each specific chronic condition was very similar, regardless of the EQ-5D version (≤?30% in half of the 28 chronic conditions).

Conclusion

Although the proportion of individuals with the best possible health state is still very high, our findings support that the increase of levels provided by the EQ-5D-5L contributed to the validity and discriminatory power of this new version to measure health in general population, as in the national health surveys.

     

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

Quality of Life Research - 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,...     

EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The Impact on Cost Effectiveness in the United Kingdom

Objectives

To model the relationship between the three-level (3L) and the five-level (5L) EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire and examine how differences have an impact on cost effectiveness in case studies.

Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea

Purpose

This study was conducted to assess the redistribution properties of the EQ-5D-3L when using the EQ-5D-5L and to compare the validity, informativity, and reliability of both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Korean cancer patients.

Methods

Patients visiting one ambulatory cancer center self-administered the two versions of the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Redistribution properties in each dimension of EQ-5D were analyzed between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Informativity was evaluated using the Shannon entropy and ceiling effect. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales. Reliability was also evaluated in terms of test?Cretest reliability.

Results

All levels of the EQ-5D-3L substantially partitioned into associated levels of the EQ-5D-5L. The average inconsistency rate of the two versions was 3.5%. Absolute informativity was higher for the EQ-5D-5L than for the EQ-5D-3L, but their informative efficiency tended to be similar. The proportion of ??perfect health?? (11111) decreased from 16.8% in the EQ-5D-3L to 9.7% in the EQ-5D-5L. EQ-5D-5L demonstrated similar or higher correlations with the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30, than the EQ-5D-3L. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the EQ-5D-5L index was 0.77.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L had greater informativity and lower rate in the ceiling effect than those values of the EQ-5D-3L. The EQ-5D-5L showed good construct validity and reasonable reliability. Therefore, considering these findings, the EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to the EQ-5D-3L.     

An International Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of using EQ5D-5L (5L) compared with EQ5D-3L (3L) in cost-effectiveness analyses in 6 countries with 3L and 5L values: Germany, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, China, and Spain.MethodsEight cost-effectiveness analyses based on clinical studies with 3L provided 11 pairwise comparisons. We estimated cost-effectiveness by applying the appropriate country values for 3L to observed responses. We re-estimated cost-effectiveness for each country by predicting the 5L tariff score for each respondent, for each country, using a previously published mapping method. We compared results in terms of impact on estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsFor most countries the impact of moving from 3L to 5L is to lower the incremental QALY gain in the majority of comparisons. The only exception to this was Japan, where 4 out of 11 cases (37%) saw lower QALYs gained when using 5L. The mean and median reductions in health gain, in those case studies where 5L does lead to lower health gain, are largest in The Netherlands (84% mean reduction, 41% median reduction), Germany (68% and 27%), and Spain (30% and 31%). For most countries, those studies where 5L leads to lower health gain see larger reductions than the gains in studies showing the opposite tendency.ConclusionsOverall, 3L and 5L are not interchangeable in these countries. Differences between results are large, but the direction of change can be unpredictable. These findings should prompt further investigation into the reasons for differences.     

Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece

Purpose

To validate and compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L with the EQ-5D-5L classification systems in Greece.

Methods

Participants (n = 2279) over 40 years old, sampled from the greater area of Athens using a multistage stratified quota sampling method, completed both EQ-5D versions, while information was also collected on socio-demographics and health-related characteristics. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L were evaluated in terms of agreement, ceiling effects, redistribution and inconsistency, informativity, and convergent and known-groups validity.

Results

The agreement between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L was high (ICC = 0.85). Ceiling effects decreased significantly in the EQ-5D-5L in all domains (P < 0.001), with “usual activities” (?21.4 %) and “self-care” (?20.1 %) showing the highest absolute and “anxiety/depression” the highest relative reduction (?32.46 %). Inconsistency was low (5.7 %). The increase in prevalence of problems was larger than the decrease in their severity, resulting in a lower mean health utility for the EQ-5D-5L. Overall absolute and relative informativity improved by 70.5 % and 16.4 %, respectively, in the EQ-5D-5L. Both instruments exhibited good convergent and known-groups validity, with evidence of a considerably better convergent performance and discriminatory ability of the EQ-5D-5L.

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D versions demonstrated good construct validity and had consistent redistribution. The EQ-5D-5L system may be preferable to the EQ-5D-3L, as it exhibited superior performance in terms of lower ceiling effects, higher absolute and relative informativity, and improved convergent and known-groups validity efficiency.