IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i9d10.1007_s10198-024-01682-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2 in patients with late-onset Pompe disease

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Huan Xu

    (Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Dong Dong

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D (3L and 5L) and SF-6Dv2 in a group of Chinese patients with late-on Pompe disease (PD), and compare their performance in this patient group. Methods The data used in this study were obtained from a web-based and cross-sectional survey conducted in China. All participants completed the 3L, 5L, and SF-6Dv2. Information about their sociodemographic status and health conditions was also collected. The measurement properties were assessed by examining ceiling and floor effects, evaluating convergent validity, known-group validity, and test–retest reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and Gwet’s AC). Results A total of 117 PD patients completed the questionnaire. All dimensions of the 3L showed strong ceiling effects, ranging between 17.1 and 42.7%. All three measures showed good test–retest reliability, with ICC values ranging from 0.85 to 0.87. The Gwet’s AC values showed that four out of five dimensions of the 3L showed very good agreement. All hypothesized correlations between the 3L, 5L, SF-6Dv2, and items of WHODAS were supported, indicating satisfactory convergent validity. The 5L showed stronger correlations (|r|= 0.53–0.84) with WHODAS than the other two measures. The outcomes of ANOVA indicated that the 5L had higher F-statistics than the 3L and SF-6Dv2, indicating a stronger discriminant ability to differentiate most condition groups. Conclusion The 5L demonstrates lower ceiling and floor effects, higher discriminant ability, and better convergent validity than the SF-6Dv2 and 3L in patients with PD. In addition, the 5L may generate a larger utility gain compared to the other two instruments when conducting cost-effectiveness analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Huan Xu & Nan Luo & Dong Dong, 2024. "Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2 in patients with late-onset Pompe disease," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1505-1515, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01682-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01682-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01682-2
    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/s10198-024-01682-2?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. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.
    2. Richard Huan Xu & Dong Dong & Nan Luo & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Yushan Wu & Siyue Yu & Renchi Yang & Junshuai Liu & Huiqin Yuan & Shuyang Zhang, 2021. "Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 547-557, June.
    3. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Edward Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2018. "What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 557-570, May.
    4. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    5. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    6. David K. Whynes & Nikola Sprigg & James Selby & Eivind Berge & Philip M. Bath, 2013. "Testing for Differential Item Functioning within the EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 252-260, February.
    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. Guizhi Weng & Yanming Hong & Nan Luo & Clara Mukuria & Jie Jiang & Zhihao Yang & Sha Li, 2023. "Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 197-207, March.
    2. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    3. Aixue Zhang & Jing Li & Zhuxin Mao & Zitong Wang & Jing Wu & Nan Luo & Peng Liu & Pei Wang, 2024. "Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in patients with lymphoma in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1471-1484, December.
    4. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    8. Jiajun Yan & Shitong Xie & Jeffrey A. Johnson & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Arto Ohinmaa & Stirling Bryan & Feng Xie, 2024. "Canada population norms for the EQ-5D-5L," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 147-155, February.
    9. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    10. Knott, Rachel J. & Lorgelly, Paula K. & Black, Nicole & Hollingsworth, Bruce, 2017. "Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 247-255.
    11. Tracey H. Sach & Mary Onoja & Holly Clarke & Miriam Santer & Ingrid Muller & Taeko Becque & Beth Stuart & Julie Hooper & Mary Steele & Sylvia Wilczynska & Matthew J. Ridd & Amanda Roberts & Amina Ahme, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1165-1176, September.
    12. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    13. Yin Ting Cheung & Pok Hong Lam & Henry Hon Wai Lam & Chung-Tin Ma & Alex Wing Kwan Leung & Raymond Siu Ming Wong & Chi Kong Li, 2022. "Treatment Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Hemophilia in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, May.
    14. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    15. Aimin Wang & Kim Rand & Zhihao Yang & Richard Brooks & Jan Busschbach, 2022. "The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1007-1014, August.
    16. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    17. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    18. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    19. Michał Jakubczyk & Michał Lewandowski, 2024. "How sure are you? — the properties of self-reported conviction in the elicitation of health preferences with discrete choice experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 351-368, May.
    20. Michela Meregaglia & Elena Nicod & Michael Drummond, 2023. "The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1151-1216, September.

    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:25:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01682-2. 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.