Literature DB >> 18320352

Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods.

M F Janssen1, E Birnie, G J Bonsel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the quantitative position of the level descriptors of the standard EQ-5D three-level system (3L) and a newly developed, experimental five-level version (5L) using a direct and a vignette-based indirect method.
METHODS: Eighty-two respondents took part in the study. The direct method represented a visual analog scale (VAS) rating of the nonextreme level descriptors for each dimension and each instrument separately. The indirect method required respondents to score 15 health scenarios with 3L, 5L and a VAS scale. Investigated were: (1) equidistance (Are 3L and 5L level descriptors distributed evenly over the VAS continuum?); (2) isoformity (Do the identical level descriptors on 3L and 5L yield similar results?); and (3) consistency between dimensions (Do the positions of similar level descriptors differ across dimensions within instruments?).
RESULTS: Equidistance without transformation was rejected for all dimensions for both 3L and 5L but satisfied for 5L after transformation. Isoformity gave mixed results. Consistency between dimensions was satisfied for both instruments and both methods. DISCUSSION: The level descriptors have similar distributions across comparable dimensions within each system, but the pattern differs between 3L and 5L. This methodological study provides evidence of increased descriptive power and a broadened measurement continuum that encourages the further development of an official five-level EQ-5D.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18320352      PMCID: PMC2275305          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  19 in total

Review 1.  A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brazier; M Deverill; C Green; R Harper; A Booth
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences.

Authors:  C C Preston; A M Colman
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2000-03

3.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Kevin D Willison
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.

Authors:  S D Keller; J E Ware; B Gandek; N K Aaronson; J Alonso; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J Brazier; M Bullinger; S Fukuhara; S Kaasa; A Leplège; R W Sanson-Fisher; M Sullivan; S Wood-Dauphinee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  On the equivalence of collectively and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgments of health states.

Authors:  P F Krabbe; M L Essink-Bot; G J Bonsel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial.

Authors:  A W Wu; K L Jacobson; K D Frick; R Clark; D A Revicki; K A Freedberg; J Scott-Lennox; J Feinberg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures.

Authors:  Susan Macran; Helen Weatherly; Paul Kind
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity.

Authors:  X Badia; A Schiaffino; J Alonso; M Herdman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Aki Tsuchiya; Jan Busschbach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  39 in total

1.  The English and Chinese versions of the five-level EuroQoL Group's five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Chun Fan Lee; Raymond Ng; Nan Luo; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Measuring health-related quality-of-life for Alzheimer's disease using the general public.

Authors:  Feng Xie; Mark Oremus; Kathryn Gaebel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Peter L Lakatos; László Gulácsi; Valentin Brodszky; Zsuzsanna Kürti; Szilvia Lovas; János Banai; László Herszényi; Tamás Cserni; Tamás Molnár; Márta Péntek; Károly Palatka
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems.

Authors:  Nan Luo; Minghui Li; Julie Chevalier; Andrew Lloyd; Michael Herdman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-12-25       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group's 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Chun Fan Lee; Nan Luo; Raymond Ng; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece.

Authors:  John N Yfantopoulos; Athanasios E Chantzaras
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-06-04

7.  Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.

Authors:  C D Fankhauser; U Mutter; E Aghayev; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-20       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: a head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample.

Authors:  Ines Buchholz; Kirsten Thielker; You-Shan Feng; Peter Kupatz; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study.

Authors:  M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-11-25       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.