A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Dutch patients with fractures visiting a Fracture Liaison Service
- PMID: 35674412
- DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2087409
A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Dutch patients with fractures visiting a Fracture Liaison Service
Abstract
Aims: This study compared the psychometric properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D to assess the interchangeability of both instruments in patients with a recent fracture presenting at a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS).
Materials and methods: Data from a prospective observational study in a Dutch FLS clinic were used. Over 3 years, subjects were interviewed at several time points using EQ-5D-5L and SF-36. Floor and ceiling effects were evaluated. Agreement was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficients and visualized in Bland-Altman plots. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were applied to assess convergent validity. Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test as well as effect size (ES) were used to explore known-groups validity. Responsiveness was explored using standardized response mean (SRM) and ES. For each measurement property, hypotheses on direction and magnitude of effects were formulated.
Results: A total of 499 patients were included. EQ-5D-5L had a considerable ceiling effect in comparison to SF-6D (21 vs. 1.2%). Moderate agreement between the (UK and Dutch) EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was identified with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.625 and 0.654, respectively. Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias as the differences in utilities between two instruments were highly dependent on the health states. High correlation between instruments was found (UK: rho = 0.758; Dutch: rho = 0.763). EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities showed high correlation with physical component score but low correlation with mental component score of SF-36. Both instruments showed moderate discrimination (ES > 0.5) for subgroup by baseline fracture type, and moderate responsiveness (SRM > 0.5) in patients that sustained a subsequent fracture.
Conclusion: Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D appeared to be valid utility instruments in patients with fractures attending the FLS. However, they cannot be used interchangeably given only moderate agreement was identified, and differences in utilities and ceiling effect were revealed. Comparable construct validity and responsiveness were indicated, and neither instrument was found to be clearly superior.
Keywords: C; C1; C10; EQ-5D-5L; I; I1; I10; SF-6D; agreement; construct validity; fracture; responsiveness.
Plain language summary
The EQ-5D and SF-36 as generic multi-domain questionnaires are widely used to measure the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in a sample of the persons who suffer from the diseases or the general population. Their responses could be converted to patients or societal Health State Utility Values (HSUVs) with the range of 0 (“death”) to 1 (“full health”). A specific application of HSUV is to calculate quality-adjusted life years as the indicator of effectiveness to evaluate whether the cost of a new intervention is justified in terms of health gains through cost-utility analysis in health economics, the evidence can be further used to inform decision-making. However, different instruments differ in construct and valuation, potentially leading to different estimates for the person’s same “health state”, and healthcare decisions could be compromised when researchers or decision-makers are not aware of potential differences in HSUV. Therefore, it is important to gain insight into the specific psychometric properties of these instruments, and to understand whether instruments are interchangeable. Our study is based on data from a Dutch Fracture Liaison Service (FLS is a program for secondary fracture prevention), compared the psychometric properties and interchangeability of two instruments (EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D) in patients with a recent fracture presenting at the FLS, and suggested both instruments are valid in utility elicitation in our target population. However, they cannot be used interchangeably given only moderate agreement and differences in utilities. Neither instrument was found to be clearly superior given comparable construct and longitudinal validity, but different instruments values in different aspects of HRQoL assessment.
Similar articles
-
A Head-to-Head Comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L Value Sets in Thai Patients with Chronic Diseases.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Oct;15(5):669-679. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017. PMID: 28290106
-
A comparison of measurement properties between UK SF-6D and English EQ-5D-5L and Thai EQ-5D-5L value sets in general Thai population.Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Aug;21(4):765-774. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1829479. Epub 2020 Nov 2. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021. PMID: 32981380
-
Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population.Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Jun;21(4):649-662. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01161-4. Epub 2020 Feb 17. Eur J Health Econ. 2020. PMID: 32065301
-
A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Aug;32(8):759-73. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014. PMID: 24846760 Review.
-
Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 1;11:110. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013. PMID: 23815777 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of the Measurement Properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in COVID-19 Patients in China.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024 Jul;22(4):555-568. doi: 10.1007/s40258-024-00881-5. Epub 2024 Apr 19. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024. PMID: 38641755
-
Population Norms for the EQ-5D-5L, PROPr and SF-6D in Hungary.Pharmacoeconomics. 2024 May;42(5):583-603. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01360-4. Epub 2024 Feb 28. Pharmacoeconomics. 2024. PMID: 38416366 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical