Valuing the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short Using Time Trade-Off and a Discrete Choice Experiment: A Feasibility Study

Psychometric Performance of the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short in a United Kingdom Population Sample

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the psychometric performance and construct validity of the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S), using a validated measure, the EQ-5D-5L, as a comparator.

METHODS

The experimental version of the EQ-HWB-S was compared with the EQ-5D-5L to assess the psychometric performance of the measures. Data were drawn from the valuation stages of the Extending the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year project (UK general population, n = 429) and the EQ-5D-5L UK valuation pilot study (UK general population, n = 248). Construct validity was assessed based on convergent validity, using Spearman correlations and Pearson correlations. Known-group validity was assessed by estimating effect sizes to assess the ability of the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L to discriminate between known groups based on "healthy" status, presence of a long-term condition, health and life satisfaction, age, and employment status. The degree of agreement in utility values across instruments was also evaluated using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Strong associations (rs ≥ 0.5, P < .001) were found between conceptually overlapping dimensions and the utility scores of the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L. The instruments performed comparably in discriminating between known groups including healthy versus unhealthy groups (based on the visual analog scale ≥ 80), long-term condition (vs no long-term condition), and above versus below average health and life satisfaction and employed (vs unemployed and long-term sick).

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-HWB-S performs favorably with utility values successfully discriminating between groups in which differences are expected. Convergence between the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L is evident, especially between conceptually overlapping dimensions.

A Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L in Patients, Carers, and General Public in China

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the psychometric properties of EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and to examine its relationship with EQ-5D-5L in a sample covering patients, carers, and general public.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Guizhou Province, China. The acceptability, convergent validity (using Spearman correlation coefficients), internal structure (using exploratory factor analysis), and known-group validity of EQ-HWB, EQ-HWB-Short (EQ-HWB-S), and EQ-5D-5L were reported and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 323 participants completed the survey, including 106 patients, 101 carers, and 116 individuals from the general public. Approximately 7.4% of participants had at least 1 missing response. In the EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L items related to activities, there were more level 1 responses. The correlations between EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L items ranged from low to high, confirming the convergent validity of similar aspects between the 2 instruments. Notably, EQ-HWB measures 2 additional factors compared with EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S, both of which share 3 common factors. When the patient group was included, EQ-5D-5L had the largest effect size, but it failed to differentiate between the groups of general public and carers. Both EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S demonstrated better known-group validity results when carers were included.

CONCLUSIONS

EQ-HWB measures a broader quality of life construct that goes beyond health measured by EQ-5D-5L. By encompassing a broader scope, the impact of healthcare interventions may become diluted, given that other factors can influence well-being outcomes as significantly as health conditions do.

Comparison of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S With Other Preference-Based Measures Among United States Informal Caregivers

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 (rs = 0.72), Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (rs = 0.54), and CarerQol (rs = 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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

The Measurement Properties of the EQ-HWB and the EQ-HWB-S in Italian Population: A Comparative Study With EQ-5D-5L

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 (rs > 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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Understanding caregiver burden from multiple perspectives: dyadic agreement between caregiver and care recipient

PURPOSE

Caregiver burden (CB) is typically self-assessed by caregivers. However, an emerging concept is assessment of CB by the recipients of care, i.e., the patient. The specific objectives are (1) to assess the level of agreement between care recipients' and caregivers' view on CB, across financial, physical, emotional, and social domains; (2) to explore two care recipient perspectives: their self-perceived burden (CR-SPB), and their interpretation of the caregiver's view (Proxy-CB).

METHODS

Data were collected from 504 caregiver-care recipient dyads in the U.S. using an online Qualtrics panel. The survey assessed caregiver burden using CarerQol and newly developed items. The level of agreement between responses was quantified using weighted kappa (κ) coefficients for individual items and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for index/summary scores.

RESULTS

The average age of caregivers was 49.2 years, and 62.7 years for care recipients. Dyads most commonly consisted of spouses/partners (34.5%); 68.3% lived together. Proxy-CB aligned more closely with caregiver's view, with moderate to substantial agreement across CB domains (from κ = 0.48 for emotional to κ = 0.66 for financial). In the same perspective, the CarerQol-7D Index showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.58) and the summary score of CB items substantial agreement (ICC = 0.76). Care recipients generally overestimated  CB in the Proxy-CB perspective, while they underestimated it in the CR-SPB perspective.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate there is a difference between perspectives. Strong agreement in Proxy-CB perspective suggests that care recipients can potentially substitute for caregivers depending on the domain. CR-SPB agrees less with caregivers and may provide complementary information.

The Validity of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) Instrument in Parents of Children With and Without Health Conditions

BACKGROUND

 The EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) instrument has been developed to measure the health and wellbeing of care-recipients and their caregivers for use in economic evaluation.The EQ-HWB-S has nine items, and pilot UK preference weights have now been developed.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the validity of the instrument in parents of children with and without health conditions.

METHODS

EQ-HWB-S data were sourced from an Australian paediatric multi-instrument comparison study. We analysed the baseline characteristics and response distribution of the EQ-HWB-S items. Assessment of known-group validity was conducted for EQ-HWB-S items, level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, including partial effects. Known-group analyses included three child health variables and where caregivers reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had impacted their wellbeing. We included analyses across gender, controlled for child and parent demographic variables, and compared scores across child health conditions.

RESULTS

 Item responses were distributed as expected, with higher skew for mobility and activities. Parents experienced high levels of exhaustion. We detected significant differences between groups for level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, as hypothesised; all tests were significant (p < 0.001), with moderate effect sizes (effect sizes were slightly higher for female than male parents). The regression analysis identified significantly different EQ-HWB-S scores for child health samples compared with the general population after controlling for demographic variables. Differences were observed between child health conditions.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-HWB-S is a useful instrument to measure parent quality of life for economic evaluation in this population. Data were limited to one time point; further research should investigate the instrument's sensitivity to change and test-retest reliability in this population.

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis

BACKGROUND

Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses.

METHODS

Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (HS). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score.

RESULTS

EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (HS = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, HS = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, HS = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively.

DISCUSSION

As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.

The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events

PURPOSE

The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events.

METHODS

Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021-2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test-retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity.

RESULTS

The sample included  234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for 'Mobility'. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

Exploring the Comparability Between EQ-5D and the EQ Health and Wellbeing in the General Australian Population

OBJECTIVES

The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a novel measure that conceptually overlaps with the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) while capturing broader dimensions of health and well-being. This study aimed to explore the extent to which the EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L capture overlapping or complementary constructs and to explore the discriminative ability of the EQ-HWB Short version (EQ-HWB-S) as a multiattribute utility instrument in the Australian setting.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 2002 Australian adults was performed. The survey included socioeconomic questions and health characteristics and the EQ-HWB and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Convergent and known-group validity were evaluated through Spearman rank correlation and multivariable regression analyses, respectively. An exploratory factor analysis was also performed to explore the underlying constructs of the 2 measures.

RESULTS

Correlation coefficients varied from moderate to strong (rs ≥ 0.40) between the EQ-5D-5L and the corresponding EQ-HWB dimensions (all P < .001). Based on the exploratory factor analysis, both instruments measure similar underlying constructs, with the EQ-HWB capturing broader aspects of well-being. The known-group analysis demonstrated the relative discriminative ability of the EQ-HWB-S in capturing broader aspects of health and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-HWB was at least moderately correlated with the EQ-5D-5L in overlapping domains/dimensions and demonstrated greater sensitivity in participants with mental health problems versus the EQ-5D-5L. Our findings support future research exploring the value of the EQ-HWB-S as a multiattribute utility instrument for the general Australian population.

Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study

OBJECTIVE

There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are 'on their face' when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care.

METHODS

Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model.

RESULTS

In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice.

Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains

BACKGROUND

In valuation studies of the EQ-5D-5L instrument, the composite time tradeoff method (cTTO) is often used to elicit preferences. In cTTO, some health states are considered worse than dead (WTD) and are assigned negative utility values. However, these negative values correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO is insufficiently sensitive. A recent threshold explanation has been offered to account for the lack of correlation: because the severity threshold beyond which a state is considered WTD differs between respondents, the correlation should be studied for individual respondents clustered by the number of WTD states. The results obtained in such a threshold approach were interpreted to disprove the insensitivity of the cTTO method.

AIM

To scrutinize the threshold explanation and test whether it indeed refutes the insensitivity of cTTO.

METHODS

The study uses data from the EQ-5D-5L Polish valuation study, which includes cTTO responses from 1,510 participants, each of whom evaluated 10 EQ-5D-5L states. The correlation analysis and threshold approach are repeated to confirm the results from previous studies. The data are then modified in 2 contrasting ways. First, negative utilities are randomly reshuffled to test whether the threshold approach can capture cTTO insensitivity. Second, individual-level regressions are used to simulate negative values to ensure they correlate with severity at the individual respondent level, verifying whether the overall severity-utility correlation should be observed.

RESULTS

First, reshuffling negative utilities does not change the results of the threshold approach. Hence, the threshold explanation fails to prove cTTO sensitivity. Second, when sensitivity was introduced on an individual level, a significant overall correlation between severity and negative utility arose.

CONCLUSION

cTTO is insensitive to severity for WTD states.

HIGHLIGHTS

For the composite time tradeoff method, the utility values of health states worse than dead correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO has insufficient sensitivity.Recently, a so-called threshold explanation was offered for the lack of correlation.I show why the threshold explanation fails and why the composite time tradeoff is indeed insensitive for worse-than-dead states.