IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i5d10.1007_s40258-025-00953-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D Instruments in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Caique Melo do Espirito Santo

    (Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)

  • Verônica Souza Santos

    (Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)

  • Alessandro Chiarotto

    (Erasmus MC, University Medical Center)

  • Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto

    (Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)

  • Tiê P. Yamato

    (Universidade Cidade de São Paulo
    The University of Sydney
    Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District
    Center for Pain, Health and Lifestyle)

Abstract

Background The EQ-5D instruments have been widely used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in child and adolescent populations, especially the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (beta version). Although not specifically designed for younger users, the adult versions (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) are also used in these populations. While the measurement properties of these instruments have been evaluated in children and adolescents, no systematic review to date has employed a rigorous method to assess risk of bias. Additionally, quality criteria for good measurement properties and certainty of evidence have not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to summarize and critically appraise the evidence on the measurement properties of all EQ-5D instruments in children and adolescents. Methods We conducted electronic searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to May 2024. We included studies measuring HRQoL using either the self-reported or proxy-reported version of the EQ-5D instruments—EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-Y-3L, and EQ-5D-Y-5L—using the descriptive system, visual analogue scale, and/or utility score in children and adolescents up to 19 years of age, and that tested at least one measurement property (e.g., reliability). The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology was followed to assess risk of bias, to score results for measurement properties, and to perform an evidence synthesis using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results From 3586 records identified through the search, 65 studies were included in this systematic review. We found moderate certainty of evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. Furthermore, we found very low certainty of evidence of inconsistent relevance for the EQ-5D-Y-3L, whereas the EQ-5D-Y-5L had sufficient relevance. Almost all the measurement properties (reliability, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness) considering all the EQ-5D versions ranged from moderate certainty of evidence of insufficient results to very low certainty of evidence of insufficient results. Conclusion There is moderate certainty of evidence that the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L have sufficient content validity. Both instruments can be recommended to measure HRQoL in children and adolescents aged 8–15 years. However, most of the measurement properties across all EQ-5D versions showed insufficient results, with certainty of evidence ranging from moderate to very low due to inconsistency and doubtful to inadequate risk of bias. Therefore, further research is needed to improve the methodological quality of studies on EQ-5D instruments for children and adolescents. Systematic Review Registration International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020218382 and Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/r8kt9/ .

Suggested Citation

  • Caique Melo do Espirito Santo & Verônica Souza Santos & Alessandro Chiarotto & Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto & Tiê P. Yamato, 2025. "Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D Instruments in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 797-822, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00953-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00953-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00953-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-025-00953-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    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. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    2. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    3. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    4. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    5. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    6. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    7. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    8. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    9. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    10. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Edward Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2018. "What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 557-570, May.
    11. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    12. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    13. Simon J Palfreyman & Phil Shackley & John E Brazier, 2010. "Assessing current health‐related quality of life questionnaires administered to patients with venous ulcers: can they be used in economic evaluations?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5‐6), pages 892-897, March.
    14. Hakjun Lee & Shik Heo, 2022. "Consumption Pattern Benefits of the Cultural Activities in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    16. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    17. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    19. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00953-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.