A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L

PharmacoEconomics - 2020
Alexander James Thompson1, Alex James Turner2
1Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics (HOPE) Group, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Tóm tắt

The EQ-5D-3L (3L) and EQ-5D-5L (5L) are both frequently used measures of health status. Previous studies have found the EQ-5D-5L to have superior measurement properties but no study has compared the two measures in a large general population survey using matched respondents. Using data from the GP Patient Survey, coarsened exact matching was used to match individuals completing the 3L in 2011 with those completing the 5L in 2012. Measurement properties were assessed for a general population and multimorbid population (chronic conditions ≥ 2), with ceiling effects, informativity and distribution of response compared. Changes in the direction of response, as well as the impact on utility distributions, were quantified. Matching resulted in a cohort of 1,023,218 respondents (2011: 511,609; 2012: 511,609) for analysis. Ceiling effects for the 5L were lower than the 3L (43.8% vs. 54.4%). The 5L had improved informativity and broader spread of responses than the 3L (5L top 50 profiles: 77.4% vs. 3L: 98.8%). Overall, there was an upwards shift in utility values for the 5L versus the 3L as respondents using the 5L reported ill health more frequently but with less severity. Measurement improvements and effects on utility values were more pronounced for the multimorbid population. The 5L had superior measurement properties than the 3L and should be preferred in general population surveys and for use in individuals with multimorbidity. At increasing levels of morbidity, the 5L is currently associated with higher utility values than the 3L.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

EuroQoL Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.

Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng Y-S. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–61.

Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74.

Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:171.

NHS England. GP Patient Survey 2020 [cited 17 Jan 2020]. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/gp-patient-survey/.

Ipsos MORI. Technical Annex for the GP Patient Survey: 2011–2012 Annual Report 2012 [cited 17 Jan 2020]. https://www.gp-patient.co.uk/downloads/archive/2012/June/June/2012/Technical/Annex.pdf.

NHS Digital. Patients registered at a GP practice: April 2018; Special Topic—number of patients registered compared to the projected resident population in England. 2018 [6 Feb cited 2020]. https://files.digital.nhs.uk/A7/EF50EA/gp-reg-pat-prac-topic-int.pdf.

Iacus SM, King G, Porro G. Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit Anal. 2011;20:1–24.

Blackwell M, Iacus SM, King G, Porro G. CEM: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata J. 2009;9:524–46.

Iacus SM, King G, Porro G. Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. J Am Stat Assoc. 2011;104:345–61.

Department of Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. London; 2011.

The Academy of Medical Sciences. Multimorbidity: a priority for global health research. 2018. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/82222577.

Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11:275–84.

Schmidt M. The Sankey diagram in energy and material flow management. J Ind Ecol. 2008;12:82–94.

Lupton RC, Allwood JM. Hybrid Sankey diagrams: visual analysis of multidimensional data for understanding resource use. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;124:141–51.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.

van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15. https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(12)00058-7/pdf.

Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.

Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–19.

Craig BM, Pickard AS, Lubetkin EI. Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:93–9.

Janssen MF, Gouke JB, Bonsel J, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–97.

Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l.

Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, Janssen MF, Herdman M, van Hout B, et al. Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:699–713.

Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21:49–56.

Bago T, O’Donnell O, Van doorslaer E. Differential health reporting by education level and its impact on the measurement of health inequalities among older Europeans. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1375–83.

Lindeboom M, Van Doorslaer E. Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health. J Health Econ. 2004;23:1083–99.

Khan I, Morris S, Pashayan N, Matata B, Bashir Z, Maguirre J. Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:60.

Garbarski D, Schaeffer NC, Dykema J. The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1443–53.

Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1717–27.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

PharmacoEconomics

Thông tin tác giả