IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i2d10.1007_s10198-021-01359-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring health-related quality of life and well-being: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Huan Xu

    (Hong Kong Polytechnic University
    The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

  • Anju Devianee Keetharuth

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • Ling-ling Wang

    (Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University)

  • Annie Wai-ling Cheung

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

  • Eliza Lai-yi Wong

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of three generic preference-based measures and compare their performance in a sample of Hong Kong general population. Methods Data used for this analysis were obtained from a cross-sectional telephone-based survey in July 2020. Participants were asked to complete several measures, including The EuroQol five-dimensional five levels (EQ-5D-5L), Recovering Quality of Life-Utility Index (ReQoL-UI) and ICEpop CAPability measure for adults (ICECAP-A). Acceptability, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of three measures were assessed as well as the agreement between these instruments. Results Based on data from 500 participants to the survey, a lower mean score of the ICECAP-A (mean = 0.85) was observed compared to the other two measures (meanReQoL-UI = 0.92; meanEQ-5D-5L = 0.92). All three measures showed an acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74, 0.82 and 0.77, respectively) as well as good test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.74, 0.82 and 0.77, respectively). Correlation analyses confirmed satisfactory convergent validity and the ability of the measures to differentiate between participants with different health or from socioeconomic status groups. The Bland–Altman plot revealed poor agreement between the three measures. Conclusions This study confirmed that EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A were psychometrically robust to measure HRQoL in the general HK population. The EQ-5D-5L was more suitable for assessing physical HRQoL, whereas the ICECAP-A and ReQoL-UI were more appropriate for measuring interventions aimed at improving people’s well-being and mental health.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Huan Xu & Anju Devianee Keetharuth & Ling-ling Wang & Annie Wai-ling Cheung & Eliza Lai-yi Wong, 2022. "Measuring health-related quality of life and well-being: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 165-176, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01359-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01359-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01359-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01359-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    2. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    3. Eliza L. Y. Wong & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Annie W. L. Cheung & Amy Y. K. Wong & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2018. "Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 235-247, April.
    4. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Runhua Liu & Zhuxin Mao & Zhihao Yang, 2022. "Validating the Well-Being of Older People (WOOP) Instrument in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Nicola Relph & Sarah L. Taylor & Danielle L. Christian & Paola Dey & Michael B. Owen, 2023. "“ Couch-to-5k or Couch to Ouch to Couch!?” Who Takes Part in Beginner Runner Programmes in the UK and Is Non-Completion Linked to Musculoskeletal Injury?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(17), pages 1-17, August.

    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. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    2. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    3. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    4. Joanna Coast & Elisabeth Huynh & Philip Kinghorn & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Complex Valuation: Applying Ideas from the Complex Intervention Framework to Valuation of a New Measure for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 499-508, May.
    5. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    6. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    8. Terry N. Flynn & Marcel Bilger & Chetna Malhotra & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2016. "Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 273-284, March.
    9. Richard De Abreu Lourenço & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Jason J. Ong & Julie Ratcliffe & Jo Watson & Esther Willing & Elisabeth Huynh, 2021. "Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 5-10, January.
    10. Engel, Lidia & Bryan, Stirling & Noonan, Vanessa K. & Whitehurst, David G.T., 2018. "Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: An application in the ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 154-164.
    11. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    12. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    13. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    14. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    15. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1235-1244, November.
    16. Hani Dimassi & Soumana C. Nasser & Aline Issa & Sarine S. Adrian & Bassima Hazimeh, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Health Conditions in Lebanese Community Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    18. Philip Kinghorn & Nafsika Afentou, 2020. "Proxy responses to ICECAP-A: Exploring variation across multiple proxy assessments of capability well-being for the same individuals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Ian Waudby-Smith & A. Simon Pickard & Feng Xie & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2020. "Using Both Time Tradeoff and Discrete Choice Experiments in Valuing the EQ-5D: Impact of Model Misspecification on Value Sets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 483-497, May.
    20. Petra Baji & Miklós Farkas & Ágota Dobos & Zsombor Zrubka & Levente Kovács & László Gulácsi & Márta Péntek, 2021. "Comparing the measurement properties of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O instruments in ages 50–70: a cross-sectional study on a representative sample of the Hungarian general population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1453-1466, December.

    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:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01359-0. 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 .

    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.