Asrul Akmal Shafie1, Annushiah Vasan Thakumar2, Ching Jou Lim2, Nan Luo3. 1. Discipline of Social & Administrative Pharmacy, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. aakmal@usm.my. 2. Discipline of Social & Administrative Pharmacy, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. 3. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the psychometric properties and performance of Malay and English versions of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive instrument in the general Malaysian population. METHODS: 1137 members of the Malaysian general public were sampled in this national study. Respondents were recruited by quota sampling of urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity. In face-to-face interviews, respondents first answered the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered using the EQ-Valuation Technology software, and then completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire on paper. A subgroup of the respondents were given paper form of EQ-5D-5L for completion within 2 weeks for test-retest reliability. Ceiling effects, response redistribution, informativity, and convergent validity were compared between EQ-5D-5L and ED-5D-3L separately by Malay and English language versions. RESULTS: The proportion of 'full health' responses (11111) drastically decreased by 25.55% and 15.74% in the Malay and English language versions indicating lower ceiling effects in EQ-5D-5L. Inconsistencies from response redistribution was below 6% for all dimensions across languages. The measure of relative informativity was comparatively higher in EQ-5D-5L than in EQ-5D-3L in both language versions, with the exception of dimensions mobility and pain/discomfort in the English version. Convergent validity in terms of correlation with EQ-VAS was relatively better for EQ-5D-5L dimensions, with pain/discomfort of the Malay version having the strongest correlation (|r| = 0.37). Also, reliability testing revealed moderate to poor agreements on all 5L dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-5L fared better in terms of psychometric performance compared to EQ-5D-3L for both language versions. This encourages the application of the EQ-5D-5L in health-related research in Malaysia.
PURPOSE: To determine the psychometric properties and performance of Malay and English versions of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive instrument in the general Malaysian population. METHODS: 1137 members of the Malaysian general public were sampled in this national study. Respondents were recruited by quota sampling of urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity. In face-to-face interviews, respondents first answered the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered using the EQ-Valuation Technology software, and then completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire on paper. A subgroup of the respondents were given paper form of EQ-5D-5L for completion within 2 weeks for test-retest reliability. Ceiling effects, response redistribution, informativity, and convergent validity were compared between EQ-5D-5L and ED-5D-3L separately by Malay and English language versions. RESULTS: The proportion of 'full health' responses (11111) drastically decreased by 25.55% and 15.74% in the Malay and English language versions indicating lower ceiling effects in EQ-5D-5L. Inconsistencies from response redistribution was below 6% for all dimensions across languages. The measure of relative informativity was comparatively higher in EQ-5D-5L than in EQ-5D-3L in both language versions, with the exception of dimensions mobility and pain/discomfort in the English version. Convergent validity in terms of correlation with EQ-VAS was relatively better for EQ-5D-5L dimensions, with pain/discomfort of the Malay version having the strongest correlation (|r| = 0.37). Also, reliability testing revealed moderate to poor agreements on all 5L dimensions. CONCLUSIONS:EQ-5D-5L fared better in terms of psychometric performance compared to EQ-5D-3L for both language versions. This encourages the application of the EQ-5D-5L in health-related research in Malaysia.
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
Authors: Luciana Scalone; Roberta Ciampichini; Stefano Fagiuoli; Ivan Gardini; Francesco Fusco; Laura Gaeta; Anna Del Prete; Giancarlo Cesana; Lorenzo G Mantovani Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jamilah Yusoff; Aniza Ismail; Mohd Rizal Abd Manaf; Fuad Ismail; Norlia Abdullah; Rohaizak Muhammad; Shahrun Niza Abdullah Suhaimi; Reena Rahayu Mat Zin Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Hussein Rizal; Mas Ayu Said; Hazreen Abdul Majid; Tin Tin Su; Tan Maw Pin; Rozmi Ismail; Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leong Chen Lew; Arimi Fitri Mat Ludin; Suzana Shahar; Zahara Abdul Manaf; Noorlaili Mohd Tohit Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: A M Garratt; H Furunes; C Hellum; T Solberg; J I Brox; K Storheim; L G Johnsen Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.186