Ruixuan Jiang1, M F Bas Janssen2,3, A Simon Pickard4. 1. Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. 2. EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, and Policy, University of Illinois At Chicago College of Pharmacy, 833 S Wood St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Pickard1@uic.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Normative scores (norms) allow for comparisons between population(s) of interest and the general population, which is useful for burden of disease studies and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary aim of this study was to estimate US visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) and utility-based norms for the EQ-5D-5L using the face-to-face sample. The secondary aim was to compare norms estimated in the face-to-face and online populations. METHODS: This study estimated population norms from two general population surveys: (a) face-to-face and (b) online. In these surveys, respondents provided their health state using the EQ-5D-5L health classifier and the EQ VAS. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval, and median for the 5L utility and EQ VAS were estimated for each sample and across relevant respondent characteristics to serve as the basis for US EQ-5D-5L norms RESULTS: Face-to-face sample respondents (n = 1134) were representative of the US adult general population. In this sample, mean (SD) utility decreased with increasing age until age 45 or greater (age 45-54: 0.816 (0.249) age 55-64: 0.815 (0.243) age 65-74: 0.824 (0.217) age 75 + : 0.811 (0.218)). With increasing age, more problems were reported on all dimensions except anxiety/depression; a smaller proportion of respondents age 65 and older reported problems with anxiety/depression (23.8%) as compared to the youngest respondents (42.1%). Online (n = 2018) mean utility and EQ VAS values were consistently lower than the face-to-face sample. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of US EQ-5D-5L norms facilitates interpretation and understanding of general population and patient health.
PURPOSE: Normative scores (norms) allow for comparisons between population(s) of interest and the general population, which is useful for burden of disease studies and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary aim of this study was to estimate US visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) and utility-based norms for the EQ-5D-5L using the face-to-face sample. The secondary aim was to compare norms estimated in the face-to-face and online populations. METHODS: This study estimated population norms from two general population surveys: (a) face-to-face and (b) online. In these surveys, respondents provided their health state using the EQ-5D-5L health classifier and the EQ VAS. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval, and median for the 5L utility and EQ VAS were estimated for each sample and across relevant respondent characteristics to serve as the basis for US EQ-5D-5L norms RESULTS: Face-to-face sample respondents (n = 1134) were representative of the US adult general population. In this sample, mean (SD) utility decreased with increasing age until age 45 or greater (age 45-54: 0.816 (0.249) age 55-64: 0.815 (0.243) age 65-74: 0.824 (0.217) age 75 + : 0.811 (0.218)). With increasing age, more problems were reported on all dimensions except anxiety/depression; a smaller proportion of respondents age 65 and older reported problems with anxiety/depression (23.8%) as compared to the youngest respondents (42.1%). Online (n = 2018) mean utility and EQ VAS values were consistently lower than the face-to-face sample. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of US EQ-5D-5L norms facilitates interpretation and understanding of general population and patient health.
Entities:
Keywords:
EQ-5D-5L; Face-to-face; Health-related quality of life; Normative values; Online; Patient reported outcomes; Population norms; Reference values
Authors: Nikki McCaffrey; Billingsley Kaambwa; David C Currow; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Fredrick Dermawan Purba; Joke A M Hunfeld; Aulia Iskandarsyah; Titi Sahidah Fitriana; Sawitri S Sadarjoen; Jan Passchier; Jan J V Busschbach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Claire M Nolan; Louise Longworth; Joanne Lord; Jane L Canavan; Sarah E Jones; Samantha S C Kon; William D-C Man Journal: Thorax Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Wei Liao; Xiaotian Liu; Ning Kang; Yu Song; Yinghao Yuchi; Ze Hu; Jian Hou; Chongjian Wang; Yuqian Li Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Marloes E Clarijs; Lindy M Kregting; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Linetta B Koppert; Ida J Korfage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Fitsum Sebsibe Teni; Ulf-G Gerdtham; Reiner Leidl; Martin Henriksson; Mimmi Åström; Sun Sun; Kristina Burström Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Erik Berntorp; Petra LeBeau; Margaret V Ragni; Munira Borhany; Yasmina L Abajas; Michael D Tarantino; Katharina Holstein; Stacy E Croteau; Raina Liesner; Cristina Tarango; Manuela Carvalho; Catherine McGuinn; Eva Funding; Christine L Kempton; Christoph Bidlingmaier; Alice Cohen; Johannes Oldenburg; Susan Kearney; Christine Knoll; Philip Kuriakose; Suchitra Acharya; Ulrike M Reiss; Roshni Kulkarni; Michelle Witkop; Stefan Lethagen; Rebecca Krouse; Amy D Shapiro; Jan Astermark Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.263
Authors: Andrew Malcolm Garratt; Tonya Moen Hansen; Liv Ariane Augestad; Kim Rand; Knut Stavem Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.147