IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i1d10.1007_s10198-024-01688-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events

Author

Listed:
  • Cate Bailey

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Kim Dalziel

    (The University of Melbourne
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

  • Leanne Constable

    (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

  • Nancy J. Devlin

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Harriet Hiscock

    (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
    Royal Children’s Hospital
    The University of Melbourne)

  • Helen Skouteris

    (Monash University)

  • Tessa Peasgood

    (The University of Melbourne
    University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Purpose The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events. Methods Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0–8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021–2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test–retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity. Results The sample included 234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for ‘Mobility’. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test–retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs. Conclusion The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

Suggested Citation

  • Cate Bailey & Kim Dalziel & Leanne Constable & Nancy J. Devlin & Harriet Hiscock & Helen Skouteris & Tessa Peasgood, 2025. "The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01688-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01688-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01688-w
    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/s10198-024-01688-w?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Psychometric; EQ-HWB; Families; Adverse life experiences; ACE; Quality of life;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:26:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01688-w. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.