Psychometric performance of the Chichewa versions of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L among healthy and sick children and adolescents in Malawi

Chen G, Ratcliffe J (2015) A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics 33:1013–1028 Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A et al (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20:1727–1736 Janssen M, Birnie E, Haagsma JA et al (2008) Comparing the Standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11:275–284 Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N (2018) Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics 36:675–697 Janssen MF, Szende A, Cabases J et al (2019) Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ 20:205–216 Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G et al (2010) Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 19:875–886 Kreimeier S, Astrom M, Burstrom K et al (2019) EQ-5D-Y-5L: developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories. Qual Life Res 28:1951–1961 Kreimeier S, Greiner W (2019) EQ-5D-Y as a health-related quality of life instrument for children and adolescents: the instrument’s characteristics, development, current use, and challenges of developing its value set. Value Health 22:31–37 Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X et al (2010) Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res 19:887–897 Burstrom K, Bartonek A, Brostrom E et al (2014) EQ-5D-Y as a health-related quality of life measure in children and adolescents with functional disability in Sweden: testing feasibility and validity. Acta Paediatr 103:426–435 Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K (2019) Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the EQ-5D-Y by self-repot and proxy-version: reliability and construct validity. Qual Life Res 28:3093–3105 Scott D, Ferguson GD, Jelsma J (2017) The use of the EQ-5D-Y health related quality of life outcome measure in children in the Western Cape, South Africa: psychometric properties, feasibility and usefulness - a longitudinal, analytical study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 15:12 Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S et al (2013) Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res 22:1707–1716 Noyes J, Edwards RT (2011) EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health 14:1117–1129 Wong CKH, Cheung PWH, Luo N et al (2019) A head-to-head comparison of five-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and three-level EQ-5D-Y questionnaires in paediatric patients. Eur J Health Econ 20:647–656 Wong CKH, Cheung PWH, Luo N et al (2019) Responsiveness of the EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and 3-level (EQ-5D-3L-Y) in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 44:1507–1514 Astrom M, Krig S, Ryding S et al (2020) EQ-5D-Y-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in psychiatric inpatient care for children and adolescents - a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18:164 Fitriana TS, Purba FD, Rahmatika R et al (2021) Comparing measurement properties of EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 19:256 Doeleman MJH, de Roock S, Buijsse N et al (2021) Monitoring patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis using health-related quality of life. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 19:40 Pérez-Sousa MÁ, Olivares PR, Ramírez-Vélez R et al (2021) Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L-Y and EQ-5D-5L-Y instruments in Spanish children and adolescents. Value Health 24:1799–1806 Pei W, Yue S, Zhi-Hao Y et al (2021) Testing measurement properties of two EQ-5D youth versions and KIDSCREEN-10 in China. Eur J Health Econ 22:1083–1093 Verstraete J, Marthinus Z, Dix-Peek S et al (2022) Measurement properties and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-Y-5L compared to the EQ-5D-Y-3L in children and adolescents receiving acute orthopaedic care. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20:28 Zhou W, Shen A, Yang Z et al (2021) Patient-caregiver agreement and test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies. Eur J Health Econ 22:1103–1113 Ngwira LG, Jelsma J, Maheswaran H et al (2022) Cross-CULTURAL adaptation of the beta EQ-5D-Y-5L into Chichewa (Malawi). Value Health Reg Issues 29:36–44 Ngwira LG, Jelsma J, Maheswaran H, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the beta EQ-5D-Y-5L into Chichewa (Malawi) Accepted VIHRI. 2021. Parkin D, Rice N, Devlin N (2010) Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference? Med Decis Making 30:556–565 EuroQol Group. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-3l-about/valuation/choosing-a-value-set/. Last assessed 15th September 2021. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coon SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43:203–220 Pickard AS, Law EH, Jiang R et al (2019) United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value Health 22:931–941 Bowling A (2005) Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:342–345 Institute MR. Linguitic valiation of the PedsQL™—a Quality of Life Questionnaire. 2002. Trust MR, Varni JW. Scaling and Scoring of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory ™ PedsQL™. In: Trust MR, ed., 2017. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M et al (2003) The PedsQLy 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity. Ambul Pediatr 3:329–341 IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for mac. Version 26.0. In: Corp I, ed. Armonk, NY, 2018. Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S et al (2005) Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technol Assess 9:1–93 Bas Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2007) Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Qual Life Res 16:895–904 (FDA) UDoHaHSFaDA. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. In: FDA U, ed., Federal Register. Rockville, MD: FDA, 2009. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C (1999) A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:174–184 Petrou S, Morrell J, Spiby H (2009) Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:40 Ngwira LG, Khan K, Maheswaran H et al (2021) A systematic literature review of preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures applied and validated for use in childhood and adolescent populations in sub-saharan Africa. Value Health Reg Issues 25:37–47 Pan CW, Zhong H, Li J et al (2020) Measuring health-related quality of life in elementary and secondary school students using the Chinese version of the EQ-5D-Y in rural China. BMC Public Health 20:982 Amien R, Scott D, Verstraete J (2022) Performance of the EQ-5D-Y Interviewer Administered Version in Young Children. Children (Basel) 9:93 Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T et al (2018) A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics 36:645–661 Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M (2015) 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 13:171 Scalone L, Tomasetto C, Matteucci M et al (2011) Assessing quality of life in children and adolescents: development and validation of the Italian version of the EQ-5D-Y. Italian J Public Health 8:331–341 Verstraete J, Amien R, Scott D. Comparing measurement properties of the English EQ-5D-Y three-level version with the five-level version in South Africa. Preprints (https://www.preprints.org) 2022. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E et al (2015) Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res 24:1775–1784 Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI et al (2012) Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res 21:1065–1073 Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D et al (2013) Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 22:1717–1727 Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Ribeiro FP et al (2016) Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes 14:89 Rencz F, Lakatos PL, Gulacsi L et al (2019) Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Qual Life Res 28:141–152 Wang P, Luo N, Tai ES et al (2016) The EQ-5D-5L is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L in patients with diabetes in Singapore. Value Health Reg Issues 9:57–62 Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T et al (2007) Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45:259–263 Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X et al (2015) The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res 24:1767–1774 Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S et al (2021) Valuation survey of EQ-5D-Y based on the international common protocol: development of a value set in Japan. Med Decis Making 41:597–606 PrevolnikRupel V, Ogorevc M (2021) EQ-5D-Y value set for Slovenia. Pharmacoeconomics 9:463–471 Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Estévez-Carrillo A et al (2022) Accounting for unobservable preference heterogeneity and evaluating alternative anchoring approaches to estimate country-specific EQ-5D-Y value sets: a case study using Spanish preference data. Value Health 25:835–843 Petrou S (2003) Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 12:697–702