Comparison of the measurement properties and consistency between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L in adolescents aged 15–17 in China

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the measurement properties and consistency between the Chinese versions of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L among Chinese adolescent populations aged 15–17 years.MethodsChinese adolescents aged 15–17 studying in high school were recruited through online survey. Social-demographic characteristics and self-reported EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L responses were collected in the survey. The consistency of responses between the two measures was assessed using redistribution property, and the consistency of utility values was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Convergent validity and known-group validity were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation, F-test and effect sizes, respectively. Sensitivity was compared using relative efficiency (RE).Results762 respondents (48.8% male; age 15–17 years;) were recruited. The EQ-5D-3L showed a more severe ceiling effect than EQ-5D-Y-3L (78.2% vs. 66.0%). Respondents reported higher proportions of having problems in four dimensions using the EQ-5D-Y-3L than using the EQ-5D-3L. The consistency of corresponding dimensions between the two measures was relatively good, while non-negligible proportions of inconsistency were observed in “pain/discomfort” (11.4%) and “anxiety/depression” (15.7%) dimensions. The ICC of the utility values between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L was 0.852 (p < 0.001). The Spearman’s rank correlation (range: 0.385–0.620) indicated an acceptable convergent validity between the correlative dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L. The EQ-5D-Y-3L had a higher efficiency than the EQ-5D-3L at detecting differences across EQ VAS subgroups (ES = 1.793 for EQ-5D-3L, ES = 1.920 for EQ-5D-Y-3L). Mixed results were observed in sensitivity.ConclusionsBoth the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L are demonstrated to be valid and generally consistent for measuring HRQoL among adolescents aged 15–17 years in China. Respondents reported higher proportions of having problems using the EQ-5D-Y-3L than using the EQ-5D-3L. More research is warranted to compare the discriminant validity and test-retest reliability between the two measures.