US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?

I. Chan Huang, Richard J. Willke, Mark J. Atkinson, William R. Lenderking, Constantine Frangakis, Albert W Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods: Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results: The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P <0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions: EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1065-1072
Number of pages8
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume16
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2007

Fingerprint

Weights and Measures
HIV
CD4 Lymphocyte Count
Viral Load
Population
Health Surveys
Psychometrics
HIV-1
Mental Health
Randomized Controlled Trials
Quality of Life

Keywords

  • EQ-5D
  • Health utility
  • Preference weights
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights : Does choice of preference weights make a difference? / Huang, I. Chan; Willke, Richard J.; Atkinson, Mark J.; Lenderking, William R.; Frangakis, Constantine; Wu, Albert W.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 16, No. 6, 08.2007, p. 1065-1072.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Huang, I. Chan ; Willke, Richard J. ; Atkinson, Mark J. ; Lenderking, William R. ; Frangakis, Constantine ; Wu, Albert W. / US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights : Does choice of preference weights make a difference?. In: Quality of Life Research. 2007 ; Vol. 16, No. 6. pp. 1065-1072.
@article{f0f1748181d0432a9822c8b419c7162e,
title = "US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?",
abstract = "Background: Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods: Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results: The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P <0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions: EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.",
keywords = "EQ-5D, Health utility, Preference weights, Validity",
author = "Huang, {I. Chan} and Willke, {Richard J.} and Atkinson, {Mark J.} and Lenderking, {William R.} and Constantine Frangakis and Wu, {Albert W}",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-007-9206-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "1065--1072",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights

T2 - Does choice of preference weights make a difference?

AU - Huang, I. Chan

AU - Willke, Richard J.

AU - Atkinson, Mark J.

AU - Lenderking, William R.

AU - Frangakis, Constantine

AU - Wu, Albert W

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - Background: Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods: Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results: The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P <0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions: EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.

AB - Background: Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods: Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results: The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P <0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions: EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.

KW - EQ-5D

KW - Health utility

KW - Preference weights

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547423802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547423802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-007-9206-4

DO - 10.1007/s11136-007-9206-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 17415683

AN - SCOPUS:34547423802

VL - 16

SP - 1065

EP - 1072

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 6

ER -