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

Abstract

ObjectivesThis 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsA 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. ConclusionsEQ-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.