IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290606.html

Exploring differences and similarities of EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-OLD in recipients of aged care services in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Ole Marten
  • Wolfgang Greiner

Abstract

European countries more than ever face shifts towards aging societies with accompanying challenges for health and aged care services. Economic evaluation has mainly relied on health measures such as EQ-5D across populations and conditions. We want to know how well the EQ-5D performs in the target population to avoid bias to the disadvantage of older adults and care-dependents. Therefore, we aim to explore differences and similarities of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in comparison to the old-age specific WHOQOL-OLD instrument in a sample of older adults receiving aged care services. We collected data from n = 329 older adults (≥65 years) receiving aged care services in Germany; the majority was at least 80 years and had varying care needs. We assessed instruments’ feasibility, test-retest reliability, instruments’ association and sensitivity to known-group differences. In terms of feasibility and test-retest reliability both EQ-5D versions performed better than the WHOQOL-OLD. All measures differentiated well between groups based on aspects of general health and care levels. The analysis of relationship between measures indicated that EQ-5D and WHOQOL-OLD assess partially overlapping, but distinct constructs. We found no clear evidence of superiority of either EQ-5D version over the other. The EQ-5D-5L performed better in terms of test-retest reliability and stronger correlations with WHOQOL-OLD facets. We conclude that using the WHOQOL-OLD alongside EQ-5D in this sample added further information on different aspects of quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Ole Marten & Wolfgang Greiner, 2023. "Exploring differences and similarities of EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-OLD in recipients of aged care services in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290606
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290606
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290606&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290606?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. Richard Holland & Richard D Smith & Ian Harvey & Louise Swift & Elizabeth Lenaghan, 2004. "Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 793-805, August.
    2. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    3. Jenny Cleland & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe, 2019. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 781-801, December.
    4. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    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. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    2. Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    3. Guizhi Weng & Yanming Hong & Nan Luo & Clara Mukuria & Jie Jiang & Zhihao Yang & Sha Li, 2023. "Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 197-207, March.
    4. Lidia Engel & Leona Kosowicz & Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Frances Batchelor & Nancy Devlin & Briony Dow & Andrew S. Gilbert & Brendan Mulhern & Tessa Peasgood & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 655-666, November.
    5. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    6. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    7. Eszter Mercédesz Müller & Anna Nikl & Máté Krebs & Péter Holló & Valentin Brodszky & Lajos Vince Kemény & Fanni Rencz, 2025. "Psychometric benefits of adding bolt-ons to the EQ-5D-5L in populations undergoing minimally invasive cosmetic procedures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(7), pages 1233-1247, September.
    8. Jacob A. Richelshagen & Katja C. Senn & Stefan A. Lipman, 2026. "The corrective approach for health utility measurement using time trade-off: a direct test of validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 749-768, May.
    9. Nalin Payakachat & Mir Ali & J. Tilford, 2015. "Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1137-1154, November.
    10. Yirui Ma & Jie Deng & Qiao Liu & Min Du & Min Liu & Jue Liu, 2022. "Long-Term Consequences of COVID-19 at 6 Months and Above: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Anne Simone Juhl Christiansen & Marie Louise Sletskov Møller & Christian Kronborg & Ketil Jørgen Haugan & Lars Køber & Søren Højberg & Axel Brandes & Claus Graff & Søren Zöga Diederichsen & Jonas Bill, 2021. "Comparison of the three-level and the five-level versions of the EQ-5D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 621-628, June.
    12. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    13. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    14. Natalia Perogil-Barragán & Santiago Gomez-Paniagua & Jorge Rojo-Ramos & María José González-Becerra & Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Konstantinos Gianikellis & Antonio Castillo-Paredes & Julián Carvajal-G, 2023. "Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the OPQOL-Brief," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-11, January.
    15. Kailu Wang & Xiaopeng Guo & Siyue Yu & Lu Gao & Zihao Wang & Huijuan Zhu & Bing Xing & Shuyang Zhang & Dong Dong, 2021. "Mapping of the acromegaly quality of life questionnaire to ED-5D-5L index score among patients with acromegaly," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1381-1391, December.
    16. Clara Mukuria & Matthew Franklin & Sebastian Hinde, 2025. "Mapping functions for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 to generate EQ-5D-3L for economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 63-70, February.
    17. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    18. Abeer Rabayah & Bram Roudijk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Fanni Rencz & Saad Jaddoua & Uwe Siebert, 2025. "Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Jordan," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(3), pages 487-501, April.
    19. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "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," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    20. Becky Pennington & Monica Hernandez-Alava & Stephen Pudney & Allan Wailoo, 2019. "The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 75-84, January.

    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:plo:pone00:0290606. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.