The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results

Examining patient benefit

Healthcare policy, clinical practice and clinical research all declare patient benefit as their avowed aim. Yet, the conceptual question of what exactly constitutes patient benefit has received much less attention than the practical means of realising it. Currently, three key areas of conceptual unclarity make the achieved, real-world impact hard to quantify and disconnect it from the magnitude of the practical endeavour: (1) the distinction between objective and subjective benefit, (2) the relation between individual and population measures of benefit, and (3) the optimal measurement of benefit in research studies. A philosophical understanding of wellbeing is required to clarify these problems. Adopting a rigorous philosophical framework makes apparent that the differing goals of clinicians, researchers and research funders may make differing conceptions of patient benefit appropriate. A framework is proposed for developing rigour in methods for specifying and measuring patient benefit, and for matching benefit measures to different contexts.

Producing a preference-based quality of LIFE measure to quantify the impact of HYPOGLYCAEMIA on people living with diabetes: A mixed-methods research protocol

BACKGROUND

Assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including quality of life (QoL), is essential in diabetes research and care. However, a recent review concluded that current hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs have limited evidence of validity, reliability and responsiveness for assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in people living with diabetes. None of the PROMs identified could be used directly to inform the cost-effectiveness of treatments and interventions. There is a need for a new hypoglycaemia-specific QoL PROM, which can be used directly to inform economic evaluations.

AIMS

This project has three aims: (a) To develop draft PROM content for measuring the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in adults with diabetes. (b) To refine the draft content using cognitive debriefing interviews and psychometrics. This will result in a condition-specific PROM that can be used to quantify the impact of hypoglycaemia upon QoL. (c) To generate a preference-based measure (PBM) that will enable utility values to be calculated for economic evaluation.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, three-stage design is used: (a) Qualitative interviews will inform the draft PROM content. (b) Cognitive debriefing interview data will be used to refine the draft PROM content. The PROM will be administered in a large-scale survey to enable psychometric validation. Final item selection for the PROM will be informed by psychometric performance, translatability assessment and input from stakeholder groups. (c) A classification system will be generated, comprising a reduced number of items from the PROM. A valuation survey will be conducted to derive a value set for the PBM.

Examining the psychometric properties of a split version of the EQ-5D-5L anxiety/depression dimension in patients with anxiety and/or depression

PURPOSE

This study explored differences in self-reported responses and the psychometric performance of the composite EQ-5D-5L anxiety/depression (A/D) dimension compared with a split version of the dimension where 'anxiety' and 'depression' are measured separately.

METHODS

People with anxiety and/or depression who visited the Amanuel Mental Specialized Hospital in Ethiopia completed the standard EQ-5D-5L with the added subdimensions. Correlation analysis was used to examine convergent validity with validated measures of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7), while ANOVA was used to assess known-groups' validity. Agreement between ratings for composite and split dimensions was compared using percent agreement and Cohen's Kappa, while the proportion of 'no problems' reports was compared using the chi-square test. Discriminatory power analysis was undertaken using the Shannon index (H') and Shannon Evenness index (J'). Open-ended questions explored participants' preferences.

RESULTS

Of the 462 respondents, 30.5% reported no problems with the composite A/D, while 13.2% reported no problems on both subdimensions. Agreement between ratings for composite and split dimensions was highest for respondents with comorbid anxiety and depression. The depression subdimension had higher correlation with PHQ-9 (r = 0.53) and GAD-7 (r = 0.33) than the composite A/D dimension (r = 0.36 and r = 0.28, respectively). The split subdimensions and composite A/D could adequately differentiate respondents based on their severity of anxiety or depression. Slightly better informativity was observed in EQ-4D-5L + anxiety (H' = 5.4; J' = 0.47) and EQ-4D-5L + depression (H' = 5.31; J' = 0.46) than EQ-5D-5L (H' = 5.19; J' = 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting two subdimensions within the EQ-5D-5L tool appears to perform slightly better than the standard EQ-5D-5L.

Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHOD

This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or 'one week') recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score.

RESULTS

Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time.

CONCLUSION

This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments. Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., "what were your symptoms like over the last week?" versus "what were your symptoms like today?"). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient's condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health "over the last day" compared to "over the last week". Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.

Extending the EQ-5D: the case for a complementary set of 4 psycho-social dimensions

OBJECTIVES

The EQ-5D is the most widely applied preference-based health-related quality of life measure. However, concerns have been raised that the existing dimensional structure lacks sufficient components of mental and social aspects of health. This study empirically explored the performance of a coherent set of four psycho-social bolt-ons: Vitality; Sleep; Personal relationships; and Social isolation.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys were conducted with online panel members from five countries (Australia, Canada, Norway, UK, US) (total N = 4786). Four bolt-ons were described using terms aligned with EQ nomenclature. Latent structures among all nine dimensions are studied using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition analyses are conducted to illustrate the relative importance of the nine dimensions in explaining two outcome measures for health (EQ-VAS, satisfaction with health) and two for subjective well-being (the hedonic approach of global life satisfaction and an eudemonic item on meaningfulness). Sub-group analyses are performed on older adults (65 +) and socially disadvantaged groups.

RESULTS

Strength of correlations among four bolt-ons ranges from 0.34 to 0.49. As for their correlations with the EQ-5D dimensions, they are generally much less correlated with four physical health dimensions than with mental health dimensions (ranged from 0.21 to 0.50). The EFA identifies two latent factors. When explaining health, Vitality is the most important. When explaining subjective well-being, Social isolation is second most important, after Anxiety/depression.

CONCLUSION

We provide evidence that further complementing the current EQ-5D-5L health state classification system with a coherent set of four bolt-on dimensions that will fill its psycho-social gap.

What is measured by the composite, single-item pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D-5L? An exploratory analysis

PURPOSE

This study examines the EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort dimension by drawing comparisons with five other pain and discomfort items (pain severity, discomfort severity, pain frequency, discomfort frequency and pain interference) collected in the Australian psychometric study for the EQ Health and Wellbeing instrument.

METHODS

Participants, recruited via a market research company, completed an online survey. Methods of analyses included the assessment of descriptive statistics, variation in reporting patterns using chi-square tests and cross-tabulations, correlation analyses, ordered univariate logistic regression, and discriminatory power analyses (Shannon index (H') and Shannon Evenness index (J')).

RESULTS

Survey data from 514 participants were used. Compared with EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort, there was a higher proportion of respondents reporting some level of impairment on at least one of the pain severity and discomfort severity items (74% versus 81%). Correlation with EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort was strongest for pain severity (r = 0.83) and weakest for discomfort frequency (r = 0.41); the same inferences were drawn for predictive ability. Adding any additional pain or discomfort items to the EQ-5D-5L increased the absolute informativity (H') but not the relative informativity (J'). When replacing EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort with separate pain and/or discomfort items - i.e., adding items to a modified 'EQ-4D-5L'-absolute informativity increased, while relative informativity increased only when pain interference and frequency-related items (independently or in combination) were added.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort dimension captures aspects of pain more than aspects of discomfort. Potential reasons include the absence of descriptors or because pain is mentioned first in the composite item.

Analyzing the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression Composite Domains and the Meaning of Discomfort in the EQ-5D: A Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVES

The EQ-5D has 2 composite domains: pain/discomfort (PD) and anxiety/depression (AD). This study aims to explore how respondents use the composites to self-report health and what the meaning of discomfort is in the EQ-5D for the general public.

METHODS

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in an online cross-sectional survey involving a nationally representative general population sample in Hungary (n = 1700). Respondents completed the 5-level version of EQ-5D, followed by the composites split into individual subdomains. Open-ended questions were asked to explore respondents' interpretations and experiences of discomfort.

RESULTS

Six different response behaviors were identified in the composites: "uniform" (21%-32%), "most severe" (30%-34%), "least severe" (16%-23%), "average" (2%-4%), "synergistic" (4%-5%), and "inconsistent" (13%-15%). Compared with the individual subdomains, many respondents under-reported their problems on both composites (PD 16%-22% and AD 6%-13%, P < .05). In respondents who scored differently in the 2 separate domains, mainly problems with the first subdomain determined responses in the composites (PD 66% and AD 61%). The discomfort subdomain in the EQ-5D captured more than 100 different problems, including pain, nonpain physical discomfort (eg, tiredness, dizziness, and nausea), and psychological discomfort (eg, anxiety, nervousness, and sadness). Women, older adults, and those in worse general health status more often considered discomfort as pain (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found empirical evidence of measurement error in the composite responses on the EQ-5D, including under- and inconsistent reporting, ordering effects, potential differential item functioning, and interdomain dependency. Our findings contribute new knowledge to the development of new and refinement of existing self-reported health status instruments, also beyond the EQ-5D.

Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons

BACKGROUND

There is variability across studies in the dimensionality i.e., set of latent variables to which health, social care and wellbeing measures relate. This variability may impact the development of new measures and the identification of bolt-on dimensions. We examine the dimensionality of commonly used measures and identify a set of potential bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS

We used the OMS dataset, an online survey of health, social care and wellbeing measures in patients and members of the general public. A content analysis provided a theoretical framework for results interpretation. Quantitative analyses were based on a pool of 79 items from 7 measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess health, social care and wellbeing measures dimensionality and their contribution to quality of life. The relationship between EQ-5D-5L items and the identified factors was used for bolt-ons identification.

RESULTS

The dimensionality comprised of seven factors, namely physical functioning, psychological symptoms, energy/sleep, physical pain, social functioning, needs and satisfaction. Health measures covered five of the seven factors identified, wellbeing measures three and the social care measure one. A list of candidate bolt-on items for the EQ-5D-5L was presented e.g., cognition, energy, dignity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence on the dimensionality of health, social care and wellbeing measures and presents a list of candidate bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L.

China Health Related Outcomes Measures (CHROME): Development of a New Generic Preference-Based Measure for the Chinese Population

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Existing generic preference-based measures were all developed in Western countries. Evidence shows that the Chinese population may have different perceptions about health and health-related quality of life. This study aimed at developing a descriptive system of a new generic preference-based measure under the initiative of China Health Related Outcomes Measures (CHROME).

METHODS

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted in-person or online. Respondents were recruited from both the general public and populations with chronic diseases. Open-ended questions about the respondent's perception of general health and important aspects of health-related quality of life were asked. Probing questions based on a systematic review of existing generic preference-based measures were also used. The framework analysis was used to synthesize the qualitative data. Candidate items for the descriptive system were selected following the ISPOR and COSMIN guidelines. Expert panel review and cognitive debriefings were conducted for further revisions.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews were conducted among 68 respondents, with 48.5% male and a mean age of 47.8 years (range 18-81 years). In total, 1558 codes were identified and then aggregated to 31 sub-themes and corresponding six themes to inform the development of the initial version of the descriptive system. Feedback from the expert panel survey and meeting (n = 15) and the cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 30) was incorporated into the revised version of the measure. Finally, the generic version of CHROME (CHROME-G) included 12 items across six domains, namely, pain, fatigue, appetite, mobility, vision, hearing, sleeping, daily activities, depression, worry, memory, and social interactions. The descriptive system used a mix of four-level and five-level response options and a 7-day recall period.

CONCLUSIONS

The CHROME-G is the first generic preference-based measure to be developed based on the inputs from the Chinese populations.

The role of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development of the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB)

Objectives

The value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development and refinement of outcome measures is becoming increasingly recognized. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of how PPIE was integrated within the development of a new measure designed for use in economic evaluations across health and social care, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB™).

Methods

Four PPIE sessions were held at key stages. Discussions from each session and the outcome of any tasks were shared with the wider research team and used to help inform decision-making.

Results and discussion

PPIE covered several components of outcome measure development including; review of conceptual model; discussion on sub-domain inclusion; item refinement and reduction; pre-testing of items; selection of items for the measure; and design of the measure. Key learning points for future projects were highlighted including; consideration of practicalities, resources and logistics of PPIE activities; how sessions and activities are managed effectively; and how to managing expectations and communication from both researcher and PPIE perspectives.

Conclusions

The PPIE group provided invaluable insight into perspectives of future patients and carers. Their input was fed into a number of developmental stages. The formal involvement from the PPIE group meant that the voice of the general public was heard. This helped ensure the appropriateness of the design of the final measure.

Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing Measure: Psychometric Survey Results for the EQ-HWB

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.