IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i4d10.1007_s10198-024-01722-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D instruments in a general child population based on self-reports and proxy-reports

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Li

    (China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Yanqiu Chen

    (China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Jize Sun

    (China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Mingyu Jiang

    (China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Aixia Ma

    (China Pharmaceutical University
    China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Tiantian Tao

    (Nanjing Medical University)

  • Pingyu Chen

    (China Pharmaceutical University
    China Pharmaceutical University)

Abstract

Objective This study utilized the EQ-5D-Y and the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) instruments to empirically investigate a general child population aged 7–8 years in China, with the aim of assessing and comparing the performance, correlation, and agreement between these two instruments. Both self-reported and proxy-reported versions of the instruments were considered in the analysis. Methods Data were collected from 7-8-year-old students in the second grade from four schools in Guangxi and Guiyang provinces, China. Children and their proxies independently completed their respective versions of the questionnaires, including the EQ-5D-Y, the CHU-9D, and other socio-demographic information. The psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D were assessed, including ceiling effects, internal consistency, and known-group validity. Spearman’s correlation coefficient, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots were calculated and plotted to assess the correlation and agreement between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. Results A total of 369 pairs of valid questionnaires were collected from both children and proxies. Due to the study’s focus on a general child population, both EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D yielded high utility values, with a significant ceiling effect observed, particularly in the EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported results. Compared to the EQ-5D-Y, the CHU-9D demonstrated a higher Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and better internal consistency. Both instruments also demonstrated known-group validity, distinguishing different health status groups, except for EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported results. Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicated some correlations in similar dimensions and utility values between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. The ICC of the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D utility values was 0.290 for self-reports and 0.383 for proxy-reports, indicating poor agreement between the two instruments. The Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean utility values obtained from EQ-5D-Y were significantly higher than those from CHU-9D. Conclusion The EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D demonstrated acceptable performance within the general child population aged 7–8 years in China, except for the EQ-5D-Y proxy-reported version. It suffered from a notable ceiling effect, poor internal consistency, as well as weak known-group validity and discriminative ability. Moreover, although there existed a certain degree of correlation between the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D, their utility values exhibited significant differences. Therefore, these instruments are not interchangeable in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Li & Yanqiu Chen & Jize Sun & Mingyu Jiang & Aixia Ma & Tiantian Tao & Pingyu Chen, 2025. "Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y and the CHU-9D instruments in a general child population based on self-reports and proxy-reports," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 577-588, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01722-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01722-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01722-x
    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/s10198-024-01722-x?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923, Decembrie.
    2. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    3. Carlos King Ho Wong & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2019. "A head-to-head comparison of five-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and three-level EQ-5D-Y questionnaires in paediatric patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 647-656, July.
    4. Wang Pei & Sun Yue & Yang Zhi-Hao & Zhang Ruo-Yu & Wu Bin & Luo Nan, 2021. "Testing measurement properties of two EQ-5D youth versions and KIDSCREEN-10 in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(7), pages 1083-1093, September.
    5. Jiaer Lin & Carlos King Ho Wong & Jason Pui Yin Cheung & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo, 2022. "Psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-Y-5L) in comparison with three-level (EQ-5D-Y-3L) in children and adolescents with scoliosis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1383-1395, November.
    6. Zhihao Yang & Jie Jiang & Pei Wang & Xuejing Jin & Jing Wu & Yu Fang & Da Feng & Xiaoyu Xi & Shunping Li & Mingxia Jing & Bin Zheng & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2022. "Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for China," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-155, December.
    7. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    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. Powell, Philip A. & Rowen, Donna & Keetharuth, Anju & Mukuria, Clara & Shah, Koonal, 2024. "Who should value children's health and how? An international Delphi study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    2. Tuomas Korhonen & Virpi Sillanpää & Aki Jääskeläinen, 2023. "Anchor practices that guide horizontal performance measurement: an interventionist case study of the financial aspect of new technology implementation in healthcare," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 787-816, September.
    3. Clara C. Zwack & Milad Haghani & Esther W. Bekker-Grob, 2024. "Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-30, December.
    4. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    5. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    6. Roberta Ara & Tessa Peasgood & Clara Mukuria & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi-Zouraq & Suzy Paisley & Tracey Young & Ben Hout & John Brazier, 2017. "Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 7-9, December.
    7. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    8. Michael Falk Hvidberg & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2023. "Catalogues of EQ-5D-3L Health-Related Quality of Life Scores for 199 Chronic Conditions and Health Risks for Use in the UK and the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(10), pages 1287-1388, October.
    9. Wenjing Zhou & Anle Shen & Zhihao Yang & Pei Wang & Bin Wu & Michael Herdman & Jan Busschbach & Nan Luo, 2024. "Validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-Y in children with haematological malignancies and their caregivers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1361-1370, November.
    10. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    11. Helen Dakin & Alastair Gray, 2018. "Decision Making for Healthcare Resource Allocation: Joint v. Separate Decisions on Interacting Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 476-486, May.
    12. Anna Philipson & Lars Hagberg & Liselotte Hermansson & Jan Karlsson & Emma Ohlsson-Nevo & Linda Ryen, 2023. "Mapping the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) onto SF-6D Using Swedish General Population Data," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 765-776, September.
    13. Mimmi Åström & Ola Rolfson & Kristina Burström, 2022. "Exploring EQ-5D-Y-3L Experience-Based VAS Values Derived Among Adolescents," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 383-393, May.
    14. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    15. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    16. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    17. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Julie A. Campbell & Glen J. Henson & Valery Fuh Ngwa & Hasnat Ahmad & Bruce V. Taylor & Ingrid Mei & Andrew J. Palmer, 2025. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities from a Large Cohort (> 6000) of Australians Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for Changing Disability Severity Classifications, MS Phenotype, and Disease-Modif," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 223-239, February.
    19. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    20. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.

    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:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01722-x. 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.