Search

The EQ Health and Well-being, EQ-HWB (25-item) and the EQ-HWB-S (9-item), are new generic measures of health and well-being. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement properties of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S measures in relation to the EQ-5D-5L among the Italian general population. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from October 2020 to February 2021, followed by secondary analysis of collected data from Italian adults. This analysis included response pattern distributions, correlation strength, and known-group comparison. Known-group comparison was assessed using effect sizes (ES) across health conditions, caregiver status, and social care usage. The EQ-HWB-S index-based score was based on the UK pilot value set, whereas the Italian value set was used for scoring the EQ-5D-5L index. Out of the 1182 participants, 461 reported having a chronic condition, 185 identified as caregivers, and 42 were social care users. EQ-HWB items (7.5%) showed fewer ceiling effects than EQ-5D-5L items (34.7%). Strong correlations (r s > 0.5) were found between overlapping EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L items. EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L index scores demonstrated similar discrimination based on symptomatic chronic conditions (ES d = 0.68 vs d = 0.71), but EQ-HWB-S had slightly higher ES for social care users (ES d = 0.84 vs d = 0.74). Initial evidence supports the validity of EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S because outcome measures in the Italian population. EQ-HWB-S performed comparably to EQ-5D-5L among patients and was better in differentiating social care users. A slight decrease in discriminative properties for caregivers was observed when transitioning from EQ-HWB to EQ-HWB-S. • The EQ Health and Well-being, EQ-HWB (25-item) and EQ-HWB-S (9-item) were developed to meet the need for a single instrument applicable across different beneficiaries of health and social care services. The EQ-HWB is intended for use in clinical practice and population health surveys, whereas the EQ-HWB-S is designed for use in economic evaluations across health, social care, and public health. • This study aimed to assess the psychometric performance of the EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S in the general Italian population, including patients, caregivers, and social care users. It evaluated ceiling/floor effects, convergent validity, and discriminative ability against EQ-5D-5L. • Results support the validity of EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S as outcome measures in the Italian population. EQ-HWB-S performed comparably to EQ-5D-5L among patients and was better in differentiating social care users. There was a slight decrease in discriminative properties for caregivers was observed when transitioning from EQ-HWB to EQ-HWB-S. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S, highlighting its potential as a prominent measure in health and social care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a widely used quality-of-life measure in oncology. The ability to translate QLQ-C30 responses into utility scores would further expand its use in medical decision-making. The aims of this study were to: 1) map QLQ-C30 responses onto patient time trade-off utility scores; and 2) compare a multiattribute approach to a global evaluation approach to modeling utility scores. Methods: Two distinct approaches were applied to data from 1432 cancer patients. The multiattribute approach used psychometric analysis and expert input to select a subset of functioning and symptom scale items for modeling. The second approach focused on global health and quality-of-life items based on a conceptual model. Model selection criteria included parsimony, statistical significance and logical consistency of parameter estimates, predictive accuracy, number of states described, and scale range. Results: The optimal multiattribute model included nine variables for five items from different scales, described 144 unique states, predicted values ranging from 0.63 to 1.00, but it had poor predictive accuracy (cross-validation pseudo- R2 = 0.056). The best-fitting global approach-based model described 24 unique states using eight indicators for two items from one scale (plus a constant) and predicted values ranging from 0.17 to 1.00 (cross-validation pseudo- R2 = 0.127). Conclusions: Multiattribute models produced a greater number of unique predicted values, while global models exhibited more desirable statistical properties and a wider range of values. The recommended models will enable users to predict cancer patients’ utilities from existing and future QLQ-C30 data sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Clinical trials and community-based studies often include the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) as a measure of depression outcome. We compared responses to symptom-related items on the CES-D by depressed stroke and primary-care patients for several purposes: 1) to illustrate the use of Item Response Theory (IRT)-based (Rasch) models for comparing scale functioning across different patient subgroups; and 2) to inform clinicians and outcome researchers about scale functioning and depressive symptomatology in stroke- compared with primary care-based depression. Methods: Two data sources were analyzed, including 32 depressed patients who were 3 months poststroke, and 366 depressed primary-care patients. Presence of depression was based on a CES-D score 16 or higher. Rasch models were used to assess item fit and compare item hierarchies between depressed primary-care and stroke patients. Results: Item hierarchies were similar for poststroke depression and primary care-based depression. Interpersonal disruption items were the most difficult to endorse for both groups. No items misfit the scale in primary-care depression. Items relating to restless sleep, unfriendliness, and crying slightly misfit the scale in stroke patients, that is, may measure a different trait. Differential item functioning (DIF) between the groups was identified for items relating to appetite, restless sleep, crying, and feeling disliked. Conclusions: Results generally supported the use of the CES-D as measure of depression outcome, particularly in primary care-based depression. DIF may imply that slightly different clusters of depressive symptoms are reported by depressed stroke patients compared with primary care, but this is conjectural given the small stroke sample size and the same items have been previously associated with bias in studies of large nonstroke samples. This study found Rasch models to be useful tools to investigate scale performance for different clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several measures have been used or developed to capture the health and well-being of caregivers, including the EQ Health and Well-being (EQ-HWB) and its short form, EQ-HWB-S. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and construct validity of the EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-S in a US caregiver population. A cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 504 caregivers. Eligible participants were 18+ years old, provided unpaid care to a relative/friend aged 18+ in the past 6 months, and spent on average of at least 1 hour per week caregiving. Survey included the following measures: EQ-HWB, Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers-Carer, CarerQol, and EQ-5D-5L. Psychometric properties were assessed using response distributions, floor/ceiling effects, Spearman's correlation for convergent validity, and effect sizes (ES) for known-group validity based on caregiving situations and intensity. The average age of caregivers was 49.2 (SD = 15.4), with 57.5% being female. More than half (54.4%) reported high caregiving intensity, and 68.3% lived with the care recipient. The EQ-HWB-S index showed a strong positive correlation with the EQ-5D-5L (r s = 0.72), Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (r s = 0.54), and CarerQol (r s = 0.54) indices. Notably, the EQ-HWB-S index showed the largest ES among measures in differentiating caregiving scenarios with a large ES for caregiver's general health (d = 1.00) and small ES for caregiving intensity (d = 0.39). Results support construct validity of EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S as measures for assessing health and well-being of adult informal caregivers in comparison with other validated instruments. Differing levels of known-group validity across anchors emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate measures for caregivers, depending on research question and/or intervention aims. • Various preference-based measures, including Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers-Carer, CarerQol-7D, and EQ-5D-5L, can be used to assess the health and quality of life of informal caregivers. The EQ Health and Well-being (EQ-HWB) was developed as a broader measure of health and well-being, including for caregivers. However, its psychometric properties have yet to be examined in relation to other validated measures, specifically in caregivers. • This study evaluated the psychometric properties of EQ-HWB and its short form, EQ-HWB-S, in a heterogeneous US caregiver population, demonstrating construct validity with other preference-based measures. Notably, care recipients' self-perceived burden to caregivers proved to be a valid anchor-based criterion for distinguishing groups based on the influence of caregiving on their health and well-being. • The findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate measures for assessing health and well-being of informal caregivers. This choice should depend on the specific aims of the intervention being evaluated and perspective of economic evaluation. Using the appropriate measures can lead to more accurate assessments of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions with impacts on broader quality of life and well-being, which is essential for informed decision making in healthcare policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The development of measures such as the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing) requires selection of items. This study explored the psychometric performance of candidate items, testing their validity in patients, social carer users, and carers.Methods: Article and online surveys that included candidate items (N = 64) were conducted in Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States. Psychometric assessment on missing data, response distributions, and known group differences was undertaken. Dimensionality was explored using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Poorly fitting items were identified using information functions, and the function of each response category was assessed using category characteristic curves from item response theory (IRT) models. Differential item functioning was tested across key subgroups.Results: There were 4879 respondents (Argentina = 508, Australia = 514, China = 497, Germany = 502, United Kingdom = 1955, United States = 903). Where missing data were allowed, it was low (UK article survey 2.3%; US survey 0.6%). Most items had responses distributed across all levels. Most items could discriminate between groups with known health conditions with moderate to large effect sizes. Items were less able to discriminate across carers. Factor analysis found positive and negative measurement factors alongside the constructs of interest. For most of the countries apart from China, the confirmatory factor analysis model had good fit with some minor modifications. IRT indicated that most items had well-functioning response categories but there was some evidence of differential item functioning in many items.Conclusions: Items performed well in classical psychometric testing and IRT. This large 6-country collaboration provided evidence to inform item selection for the EQ-HWB measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]