IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v12y2022i1d10.1186_s13561-022-00374-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility properties of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in the general population: evidence from the GP Patient Survey on the impact of age

Author

Listed:
  • Ole Marten

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Wolfgang Greiner

    (Bielefeld University)

Abstract

Background There is evidence to suggest that the proportion of missing values is slightly higher in the older population resulting in lower completion rates of the EQ-5D. However, existing studies rarely provide a within-sample comparison of feasibility properties across age groups to quantify this difference. Hence, this study examines feasibility properties of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in the general population and explores the impact of age on the completion of EQ-5D instruments. Methods We pool five waves from the English GP Patient Survey, where respondents self-report their health in either EQ-5D-3L or 5L. Descriptive analysis was undertaken to analyse the distribution and proportion of missing values and completion rates stratified by age and EQ-5D version; logistic regression models were specified to quantify the impact of age, gender and potential long-term conditions on the completion of each of the EQ-5D instruments. Results The total sample comprises ~ 4.36 million observations, of which 2.88 million respondents report their health in 5L and 1.47 million in 3L, respectively. Respondents over 64 years have slightly more missing values in each dimension than younger respondents. The highest share was observed for the oldest age group in the dimension anxiety/depression (3L 9.1% vs. 5L 7.6%), but was otherwise below 5%. Consequently, completion rates (observed and predicted) decreased with older age and at a higher rate after the age of 64; this was more pronounced for the 3L. Conclusion Evidence from our study suggests that both the EQ-5D-3L and 5L have good feasibility properties. In comparison to younger populations there appears to be a higher proportion of respondents with incomplete responses beyond the age of 64 years. Overall, the 5L version compares more favourably in terms of missing values, completion rates as well as with regard to the expected probability of an incomplete descriptive system.

Suggested Citation

  • Ole Marten & Wolfgang Greiner, 2022. "Feasibility properties of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in the general population: evidence from the GP Patient Survey on the impact of age," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00374-y
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00374-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-022-00374-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-022-00374-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin;John Appleby, 2010. "Getting the Most out of PROMs: Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision-Making," Monograph 000220, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Laika Köse Tamer & Gülten Sucu Dağ, 2020. "The Assessment of Pain and the Quality of Postoperative Pain Management in Surgical Patients," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    3. Max W de Graaf & Inge H F Reininga & Erik Heineman & Mostafa El Moumni, 2019. "The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Madhavan, Naveen & White, Gareth R.T. & Jones, Paul, 2023. "Identifying the value of a clinical information system during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Stirling Bryan & Craig Mitton & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Breaking The Addiction To Technology Adoption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 379-383, April.
    6. David Nuttall & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2015. "Inter‐Provider Comparison Of Patient‐Reported Outcomes: Developing An Adjustment To Account For Differences In Patient Case Mix," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 41-54, January.
    7. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Zoe Moula & Nicola Walshe & Elsa Lee, 2021. "Making Nature Explicit in Children’s Drawings of Wellbeing and Happy Spaces," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(4), pages 1653-1675, August.
    9. Leah Couzner & Maria Crotty & Richard Norman & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an Older Post-Acute Patient Population Relative to the General Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 415-425, August.
    10. Bischof, Anja & Salvi, Irene & Kuklinski, David & Vogel, Justus & Geissler, Alexander, 2023. "Design Principles of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs: Crafting and Elaborating the Potential of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs," Working Paper Series in Health Economics, Management and Policy 2023-05, University of St.Gallen, School of Medicine, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management.
    11. Nancy J. Devlin & David Parkin & John Browne, 2010. "Patient‐reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ‐5D data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 886-905, August.
    12. Milena Vainieri & Guido Noto & Francesca Ferre & Laura C. Rosella, 2020. "A Performance Management System in Healthcare for All Seasons?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-10, August.
    13. Kirstie L. Haywood & Roger Wilson & Sophie Staniszewska & Sam Salek, 2016. "Using PROMs in Healthcare: Who Should Be in the Driving Seat—Policy Makers, Health Professionals, Methodologists or Patients?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(6), pages 495-498, December.
    14. Michela Luciana Luisa Zini & Giuseppe Banfi, 2021. "A Narrative Literature Review of Bias in Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-12, November.
    15. Wei-Han Cheng & Haridarshan Patel & Wan-Ju Lee & Fang-Ju Lin & A. Pickard, 2015. "Positive Outcomes of Varicose Vein Surgery: The Patient Perspective," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(4), pages 329-337, August.
    16. Elizabeth Lumley & Patrick Phillips & Ahmed Aber & Helen Buckley‐Woods & Georgina L. Jones & Jonathan A. Michaels, 2019. "Experiences of living with varicose veins: A systematic review of qualitative research," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(7-8), pages 1085-1099, April.
    17. Deepa Jahagirdar & Thilo Kroll & Karen Ritchie & Sally Wyke, 2013. "Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21, March.
    18. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    19. Matthew Skellern, 2017. "The hospital as a multi-product firm: the effect of hospital competition on value-added indicators of clinical quality," CEP Discussion Papers dp1484, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Moula, Zoe & Aithal, Supritha & Karkou, Vicky & Powell, Joanne, 2020. "A systematic review of child-focused outcomes and assessments of arts therapies delivered in primary mainstream schools," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00374-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.