Nathan S McClure1, Fatima Al Sayah1, Feng Xie2, Nan Luo3, Jeffrey A Johnson4. 1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Program for Health Economics and Outcome Measures (PHENOM), Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 4. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: jeff.johnson@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is a preference-based measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which yields an index score anchored at 0 (dead) and 1 (full health). We lack evidence on estimates for the minimally important difference (MID) of the EQ-5D-5L that will help in interpreting differences or changes in HRQOL measured by this scale score. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the MID of the EQ-5D-5L index score for available scoring algorithms including algorithms from Canada, China, Spain, Japan, England, and Uruguay. METHODS: A simulation-based approach based on instrument-defined single-level transitions was used to estimate the MID values of the EQ-5D-5L for each country-specific scoring algorithm. RESULTS: The simulation-based instrument-defined MID estimates (mean ± SD) for each country-specific scoring algorithm were as follows: Canada, 0.056 ± 0.011; China, 0.069 ± 0.007; Spain, 0.061 ± 0.008; Japan, 0.048 ± 0.004; England, 0.063 ± 0.013; and Uruguay, 0.063 ± 0.019. Differences in MID estimates reflect differences in population preferences, in valuation techniques used, as well as in modeling strategies. After excluding the maximum-valued scoring parameters, the MID estimates (mean ± SD) were as follows: Canada, 0.037 ± 0.001; China, 0.058 ± 0.005; Spain, 0.045 ± 0.009; Japan, 0.044 ± 0.004; England, 0.037 ± 0.008; and Uruguay, 0.040 ± 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based estimates of the MID of the EQ-5D-5L index score were generally between 0.037 and 0.069, which are similar to the MID estimates of other preference-based HRQOL measures.
BACKGROUND: The five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is a preference-based measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which yields an index score anchored at 0 (dead) and 1 (full health). We lack evidence on estimates for the minimally important difference (MID) of the EQ-5D-5L that will help in interpreting differences or changes in HRQOL measured by this scale score. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the MID of the EQ-5D-5L index score for available scoring algorithms including algorithms from Canada, China, Spain, Japan, England, and Uruguay. METHODS: A simulation-based approach based on instrument-defined single-level transitions was used to estimate the MID values of the EQ-5D-5L for each country-specific scoring algorithm. RESULTS: The simulation-based instrument-defined MID estimates (mean ± SD) for each country-specific scoring algorithm were as follows: Canada, 0.056 ± 0.011; China, 0.069 ± 0.007; Spain, 0.061 ± 0.008; Japan, 0.048 ± 0.004; England, 0.063 ± 0.013; and Uruguay, 0.063 ± 0.019. Differences in MID estimates reflect differences in population preferences, in valuation techniques used, as well as in modeling strategies. After excluding the maximum-valued scoring parameters, the MID estimates (mean ± SD) were as follows: Canada, 0.037 ± 0.001; China, 0.058 ± 0.005; Spain, 0.045 ± 0.009; Japan, 0.044 ± 0.004; England, 0.037 ± 0.008; and Uruguay, 0.040 ± 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based estimates of the MID of the EQ-5D-5L index score were generally between 0.037 and 0.069, which are similar to the MID estimates of other preference-based HRQOL measures.
Authors: E Haydn Walters; Andrew J Palmer; Ingrid A Cox; Barbara de Graaff; Hasnat Ahmed; Julie Campbell; Petr Otahal; Tamera J Corte; Ian Glaspole; Yuben Moodley; Nicole Goh; Sacha Macansh Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roslyn A Prichard; Fei-Li Zhao; Julee Mcdonagh; Stephen Goodall; Patricia M Davidson; Phillip J Newton; Ben Farr-Wharton; Christopher S Hayward Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Radhika Sundararajan; Helen D'Couto; Joseph Mugerwa; Mellon Tayebwa; Nicholas Lam; Eli Wallach; Matthew Wiens; Matthew Ponticiello; Debbi Stanistreet; Alexander C Tsai; Jose Vallarino; Joseph G Allen; Daniel Muyanja; Mark G Shrime; Edwin Nuwagira; Peggy S Lai Journal: Environ Res Lett Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 6.793
Authors: Di Long; Juanita A Haagsma; Mathieu F Janssen; John N Yfantopoulos; Erica I Lubetkin; Gouke J Bonsel Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-09-01