IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v36y2021i5p1613-1625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the properties of the EQ‐5D‐5L and EQ‐5D‐3L in general population in Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Satar Rezaei
  • Abraha Woldemichael
  • Sina Ahmadi
  • Amjad Mohamadi Bolbanabad
  • Farman Zahir Abdullah
  • Bakhtiar Piroozi

Abstract

Background Little information exists on properties of EQ‐5D‐5L (the 5L hereafter) compared to the EQ‐5D‐3L (the 3L hereafter) measures in the context of Iran. This study aims to compare the measurement properties of the two versions of the EQ‐5D (the 3L vs. the 5L) using data obtained from general population in Iran. Methods A total of 886 adults aged 18 years and above from September to November 2020 participated in this cross‐sectional analysis. The required data collected using self‐administered and—standard questionnaire and multistage sampling method was used to select the samples. The 3L and 5L measures compared in terms of celling effect, distribution and redistribution pattern, feasibility, convergent validity, know‐groups validity and informativity. Results From September to November 2020, 886 adults (mean aged = 44.6 years; 55% male and 87.1% married) included in the study. The study indicated that the 5L had lower celling effects compared to the 3L (45% vs. 46%). A better convergent validity and known‐groups validity was found for the 5L version compared to the 3L and significantly stronger association found between the 5L measure with both the Visual Analogue Scale and the 5‐point health status scale. The 5L index score showed higher relative efficiency (RE) in 9 of 11 condition (mean RE = 1.36). Compared to the 3L, the 5L classification system had higher Shannon index (H′) in all dimensions: mobility (0.52 vs. 0.40), self‐care (0.23 vs. 0.20), usual activities (0.61 vs. 0.47), pain/discomfort (1.19 vs. 0.89) and anxiety/depression (1.22 vs. 0.47). Conclusion The study demonstrated that the measurement properties of 5L version in terms of celling effects, convergent validity, known‐groups validity, RE and informativity similar or better than the 3L among general population; suggesting the use of 5L in the context of Iran. Hence, we suggested the use of the 5L in economic evaluation, clinical and public health studies in Iran.

Suggested Citation

  • Satar Rezaei & Abraha Woldemichael & Sina Ahmadi & Amjad Mohamadi Bolbanabad & Farman Zahir Abdullah & Bakhtiar Piroozi, 2021. "Comparing the properties of the EQ‐5D‐5L and EQ‐5D‐3L in general population in Iran," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1613-1625, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:5:p:1613-1625
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3247
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.3247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    2. John N. Yfantopoulos & Athanasios E. Chantzaras, 2017. "Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(4), pages 519-531, May.
    3. Zsombor Zrubka & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Zoltán Hermann & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Fanni Rencz & Petra Baji & Dominik Golicki & Valentina Prevolnik-Rupel & Márta Péntek, 2019. "A comparison of European, Polish, Slovenian and British EQ-5D-3L value sets using a Hungarian sample of 18 chronic diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 119-132, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel A. Perez-Sousa & Pedro R. Olivares & Narcis Gusi, 2022. "Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Versions of EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in Children with Cancer: A Comparative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-9, September.
    2. Nathan S. McClure & Mike Paulden & Arto Ohinmaa & Jeffrey A. Johnson, 2021. "Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1441-1451, December.
    3. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tracey Young, 2017. "Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-75, December.
    4. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    5. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 33-41, December.
    6. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    7. John Yfantopoulos & Athanasios Chantzaras, 2020. "Health-related quality of life and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the impact of related comorbidities/complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 729-743, July.
    8. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tessa Peasgood & Suzy Paisley, 2017. "The Identification, Review and Synthesis of Health State Utility Values from the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-55, December.
    9. Ângela Jornada Ben & Johanna M. Dongen & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Mohamed El Alili & Judith E. Bosmans, 2023. "To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1253-1270, November.
    10. Paul Schneider & Nancy Devlin & Ben van Hout & John Brazier, 2024. "Exploring health preference heterogeneity in the UK: Using the online elicitation of personal utility functions approach to construct EQ‐5D‐5L value functions on societal, group and individual level," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 894-910, May.
    11. Marta Encheva & Slaveyko Djambazov & Toni Vekov & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "EQ-5D-5L Bulgarian population norms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1169-1178, November.
    12. Michela Meregaglia & Elena Nicod & Michael Drummond, 2023. "The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1151-1216, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:5:p:1613-1625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.