Literature DB >> 26032149

Interpretation and use of the 5-level EQ-5D response labels varied with survey language among Asians in Singapore.

Nan Luo1, Ye Wang2, Choon How How3, Ee Guan Tay4, Julian Thumboo5, Michael Herdman6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the comparability of the English, Chinese, and Malay versions of the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) response labels in Singapore. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Visitors to a primary care institution in Singapore (n = 743) were asked to complete two exercises: (1) rating the severity of the EQ-5D-5L response labels presented in English, Chinese, or Malay using a 0-100 numeric rating scale and (2) using the labels to describe various hypothetical health problems. Label ratings and choices between language versions were compared using regression analysis.
RESULTS: Perceived severity of the English and Chinese labels was similar. Compared with their English counterparts, the Malay label "slight(ly)" was rated as more severe (adjusted mean difference: 10.5 to 14.5) and "unable"/"extreme(ly)" as less severe (adjusted mean difference: -13.3 to -11.0) (P < 0.001 for all). The Malay labels "no(t)" and "unable"/"extreme(ly)" and the less severe Chinese labels were more frequently used to describe hypothetical health problems than their English counterparts.
CONCLUSION: Interpretation and use of the EQ-5D-5L response labels vary among Singaporeans using different language versions of the instrument. Future studies need to investigate ways to reduce the variations and increase the cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the instrument.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Cross-cultural; EQ-5D; Language; Measurement equivalence; Response label; Singapore

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26032149     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 in total

1.  Could the EQ-5D-3L predict all-cause mortality in older Chinese? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal study in eastern China.

Authors:  Chen-Wei Pan; Rui-Jie Liu; Xue-Jiao Yang; Qing-Hua Ma; Yong Xu; Nan Luo; Pei Wang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D.

Authors:  Yan Feng; Mike Herdman; Floortje van Nooten; Charles Cleeland; David Parkin; Shunya Ikeda; Ataru Igarashi; Nancy J Devlin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: An application to English data.

Authors:  Yan Feng; Nancy J Devlin; Koonal K Shah; Brendan Mulhern; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Mathieu F Janssen; Ines Buchholz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies.

Authors:  Zhihao Yang; Fredrick Dermawan Purba; Asrul Akmal Shafie; Ataru Igarashi; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Hilton Lam; Hoang Van Minh; Hsiang-Wen Lin; Jeonghoon Ahn; Juntana Pattanaphesaj; Min-Woo Jo; Vu Quynh Mai; Jan Busschbach; Nan Luo; Jie Jiang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 3.440

6.  Conceptual Framework for Optimised Proxy Value Set Selection Through Supra-National Value Set Development for the EQ-5D Instruments.

Authors:  Agata Łaszewska; Ayesha Sajjad; Jan Busschbach; Judit Simon; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 4.558

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.