Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3 L and the EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population

8Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: This study was conducted to compare the validity and discriminative power of both the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population with multiple chronic and acute conditions. Methods: A total of 648 retired people from China (mean ± standard deviation: 73.3 ± 6.4 years; male: 55.7%) were recruited and randomized to complete the 3 L or 5 L questionnaire. The 3 L and 5 L were compared in terms of distribution properties, ceiling effects, informativity, validity and discriminatory performance. Convergent validity between the 3 L and 5 L was tested by spearman's rank-order correlation. Discriminatory power was conducted by relative efficiency as assessed by the F statistics. Results: Most participants answered to "no problems" on both versions of EQ-5D. The 5 L trended towards a slightly lower ceiling compared with the 3 L. The Shannon index improved with the 5 L while the Shannon's Evenness index tended to be similar. Convergent validity was confirmed by the moderate to strong correlation for both 3 L and 5 L. Relative efficiency suggested that 5 L had a higher absolute discriminatory power than the 3 L version in terms of the presence conditions, especially for osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome. Conclusions: Both the 3 L and 5 L are demonstrated to be valid based HRQoL instruments in Chinese elderly population. The 5 L system may be preferable to the 3 L, as it demonstrated superior performance with respect to lower ceiling effect and better discriminatory power. Further research is needed to examine the responsiveness of the two EQ-5D instruments in this population.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

You, R., Liu, J., Yang, Z., Pan, C., Ma, Q., & Luo, N. (2020). Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3 L and the EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01324-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free