IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i8p793-805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Holland
  • Richard D Smith
  • Ian Harvey
  • Louise Swift
  • Elizabeth Lenaghan

Abstract

As more research is undertaken on the elderly, accurately assessing changes in their quality of life becomes increasingly important. Generic instruments are the most popular method to assess quality of life, and one of the most widely used is the EQ‐5D. However, the range of dimensions, sensitivity of scales and completion rates have been raised as concerns when using this measure with the elderly. The AQoL is a newer instrument which offers greater richness in dimensions of health covered, and potentially offers greater sensitivity to changes in quality of life. This paper presents the results of a ‘head‐to‐head’ comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL in terms of practicality, construct validity, agreement (of absolute scores and their change over time) and sensitivity to change, as part of a randomised controlled trial in the elderly. Poor agreement was found between both the absolute scores from each instrument and change in scores over time. Although the AQoL appeared to have more favourable construct validity, the EQ‐5D was easier to administer, had a higher completion rate, and appeared more sensitive to change. We conclude that the AQoL is probably less well suited to measuring health status in a very elderly population than the EQ‐5D. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Holland & Richard D Smith & Ian Harvey & Louise Swift & Elizabeth Lenaghan, 2004. "Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 793-805, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:8:p:793-805
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.858
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.858?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. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    2. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    3. van Agt, Heleen M. E. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1994. "Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1537-1544, December.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Paul Kind, 1990. "Measuring valuations for health states: a survey of patients in general practice," Working Papers 076chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    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. Nalin Payakachat & Mir Ali & J. Tilford, 2015. "Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1137-1154, November.
    2. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    3. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    5. Julie A. Campbell & Martin Hensher & Amanda Neil & Alison Venn & Stephen Wilkinson & Andrew J. Palmer, 2018. "An Exploratory Study of Long-Term Publicly Waitlisted Bariatric Surgery Patients’ Quality of Life Before and 1 Year After Bariatric Surgery, and Considerations for Healthcare Planners," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 63-76, March.
    6. Christine M. McDonough & Tor D. Tosteson & Anna N. A. Tosteson & Alan M. Jette & Margaret R. Grove & James N. Weinstein, 2011. "A Longitudinal Comparison of 5 Preference-Weighted Health State Classification Systems in Persons with Intervertebral Disk Herniation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 270-280, March.
    7. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.
    8. Lukasz Tanajewski & Matthew Franklin & Georgios Gkountouras & Vladislav Berdunov & Rowan H Harwood & Sarah E Goldberg & Lucy E Bradshaw & John R F Gladman & Rachel A Elliott, 2015. "Economic Evaluation of a General Hospital Unit for Older People with Delirium and Dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Susan T. Stewart & Rebecca M. Woodward & Allison B. Rosen & David M. Cutler, 2005. "A Proposed Method for Monitoring U.S. Population Health: Linking Symptoms, Impairments, and Health Ratings," NBER Working Papers 11358, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    2. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    3. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    4. Erika Laranjeira & Helena Szrek, 2016. "Going beyond life expectancy in assessments of health systems’ performance: life expectancy adjusted by perceived health status," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 133-161, June.
    5. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    6. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    7. José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2005. "Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 69-82, January.
    8. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    9. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    10. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    11. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    12. Zsombor Zrubka & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Zoltán Hermann & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Fanni Rencz & Petra Baji & Dominik Golicki & Valentina Prevolnik-Rupel & Márta Péntek, 2019. "A comparison of European, Polish, Slovenian and British EQ-5D-3L value sets using a Hungarian sample of 18 chronic diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 119-132, June.
    13. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    15. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    16. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    18. Hans-Helmut König & Oliver Günther & Matthias Angermeyer & Christiane Roick, 2009. "Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 405-419, May.
    19. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    20. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:8:p:793-805. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.