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]

Objectives: The EuroQol Group recently released youth (Y) and 5-level (5L) versions of its 3-level EQ-5D instrument (3L) that measures health-related quality of life. In this study, we (1) compare 3L, Y, and 5L responses among US adults and (2) assess construct validity. Study Design and Setting: Using a nationally representative sample of US adults (N 5 2,619), we collected 3L, Y, and 5L responses in random order and estimated their associations and their relationship with a 0 to 100 numerical visual analog scale. Results: The prevalence of US adults in the best possible EQ-5D state (i.e., 11111) was lower for the Y (38%) and 5L (35%) than for the 3L (44%), capturing more health problems. However, the prevalence of extreme responses in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression decreased substantially between the 3L and 5L (from 44% to 17% and from 29% to 13%, respectively). Conclusion: Compared with the 3L, the Y and 5L versions describe population health as having more, yet milder, health problems. Although the 5L may have advantages in patient populations in which extreme problems are more prevalent, population studies or studies that follow patients from childhood may consider using the Y. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new broad generic measure of health and wellbeing for use in economic evaluations of interventions across healthcare, social care, and public health. This measure conceptually overlaps with the 5-level version EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), while expanding on the coverage of health and social care related dimensions. This study aims to examine the extent to which the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L overlap and are different.Methods: A sample of US-based respondents (n = 903; n = 400 cancer survivors and n = 503 general population) completed a survey administered via an online panel. The survey included the EQ-HWB item pool (62 items, including 11 items used in this analysis), EQ-5D-5L, and questions about sociodemographic and health characteristics. The analysis included (Spearman's) correlations, the comparison of patterns of response (distributions and ceiling effects), and the ability to discriminate between known groups.Results: Moderate to strong associations were found between conceptually overlapping dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-HWB-S (rs > 0.5, P < .001). Among respondents reporting full health on the EQ-5D-5L (n = 161, 18.23%), the EQ-HWB-S identified ceiling effects, particularly with the item "feeling exhausted." Most EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S items demonstrated discriminative ability among those with and without physical and mental conditions, yielding medium (> 0.5) to large effect sizes (> 0.8). Nevertheless, only EQ-HWB-S items distinguished between caregivers and noncaregivers and those with low and high caregiver burden, albeit with small effect sizes (0.2-0.5).Conclusions: Results indicate a convergence between the measures, especially between overlapping dimensions, lending support to the validity of the EQ-HWB-S. The EQ-HWB-S performed similarly or better than the EQ-5D-5L among patient groups and is better able to differentiate among caregivers and respondents closer to full health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]