Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1499–1506 | Cite as

Validity of the Thai EQ-5D in an occupational population in Thailand

  • Merel Kimman
  • Prin Vathesatogkit
  • Mark Woodward
  • E-Shyong Tai
  • Julian Thumboo
  • Sukit Yamwong
  • Wipa Ratanachaiwong
  • Hwee-Lin WeeEmail author
  • Piyamitr Sritara
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the construct validity of the Thai EuroQoL (EQ-5D) among an occupational population in Thailand.

Methods

Data were derived from a large cohort study among employees of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. In 2008 and 2009, 4,850 participants completed the Thai EQ-5D and Short-Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2). Thai preferences weights were used to convert EQ-5D health states into EQ-5D index scores. Construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D was examined by specifying and testing hypotheses about the relationships between the EQ-5D, SF-36v2, and participants’ demographic and medical characteristics.

Results

Construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D was supported by expected relationships with SF-36v2 scale and summary scores. For example, SF-36v2 scores on the mental health scale were much lower for participants who reported having problems on the EQ-5D anxiety/depression dimension compared to those reporting no problems (mean norm-based SF-36v2 scores: 52.9 vs. 41.8, p < 0.001). Additionally, reporting a problem in a given EQ-5D dimension was generally associated with lower SF-36v2 summary scores. The EQ-5D index score distinguished between groups of participants in the expected manner, on the basis of sex, age, education and self-reported health, thus providing evidence of known-groups validity.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated good construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D in a large occupational population in Thailand.

Keywords

Psychometrics Thailand Quality of life EuroQoL 5-dimension Short-Form 36 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi hospital, Mahidol University, the Thailand Research Fund, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and the project for Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Development, Office of the Higher Education Commission. This work is a part of the LIFECARE project which is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer international co.

References

  1. 1.
    The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine 1998, 46(12), 1569–1585.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pais-Ribeiro, J. L. (2004). Quality of life is a primary end-point in clinical settings. Clinical Nutrition, 23(1), 121–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gold, M. R., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., et al. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim, L. L., Seubsman, S. A., & Sleigh, A. (2008). Thai SF-36 health survey: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity in healthy men and women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    EuroQoL group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaiyawat, P., Kulkantrakorn, K., & Sritipsukho, P. (2009). Effectiveness of home rehabilitation for ischemic stroke. Neurology International, 1(1), e10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leelahavarong, P., Teerawattananon, Y., Werayingyong, P., et al. (2011). Is a HIV vaccine a viable option and at what price? An economic evaluation of adding HIV vaccination into existing prevention programs in Thailand. BMC Public Health, 11, 534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sakthong, P., Schommer, J. C., Gross, C. R., et al. (2009). Health utilities in patients with HIV/AIDS in Thailand. Value Health, 12(2), 377–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasanen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., et al. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(2), 235–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EuroQoL group. www.euroqol.org. Accessed 12 Apr 2012.
  14. 14.
    Sakthong, P., Charoenvisuthiwongs, R., & Shabunthom, R. (2008). A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tongsiri, S., & Cairns, J. (2011). Estimating Population-Based Values for EQ-5D Health States in Thailand. Value Health, 14(8), 1142–1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vathesatogkit, P., Woodward, M., Tanomsup, S. et al. (2012). Cohort Profile: The electricity generating authority of Thailand study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(2), 359–365.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tai, E. S., Poulton, R., Thumboo, J., et al. (2009). An update on cardiovascular disease epidemiology in South East Asia. Rationale and design of the LIFE course study in CARdiovascular disease Epidemiology (LIFECARE). CVD Prevention and Control, 4, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., et al. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krittayaphong, R., Bhuripanyo, K., Raungratanaamporn, O., et al. (2000). Reliability of Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life in cardiac patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 83(Suppl 2), S130–S136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laosanguanek, N., Wiroteurairuang, T., Siritho, S., et al. (2011). Reliability of the Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for an evaluation of quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients in multiple sclerosis clinic at Siriraj Hospital. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 94(Suppl 1), S84–S88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singhpoo, K., Tiamkao, S., Kuchaisit, C., et al. (2009). The quality of life of stroke outpatients at Srinagarind Hospital. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 92(12), 1602–1609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 169–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., et al. (2003). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 12(1), 87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., et al. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shafie, A. A., Hassali, M. A., & Liau, S. Y. (2011). A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 593–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 119–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1993). Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 441–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kittikraisak, W., Kingkaew, P., Teerawattananon, Y., et al. (2012). Health related quality of life among patients with tuberculosis and HIV in Thailand. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sakthong, P., & Kasemsup, V. (2012). Health utility measured with EQ-5D in Thai patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Value Health, 15(1 Suppl), S79–S84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robinson, J. R., Young, T. K., Roos, L. L., et al. (1997). Estimating the burden of disease. Comparing administrative data and self-reports. Medical Care, 35(9), 932–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Okura, Y., Urban, L. H., Mahoney, D. W., et al. (2004). Agreement between self-report questionnaires and medical record data was substantial for diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke but not for heart failure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(10), 1096–1103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leikauf, J., & Federman, A. D. (2009). Comparisons of self-reported and chart-identified chronic diseases in inner-city seniors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57(7), 1219–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Molenaar, E. A., Van Ameijden, E. J., Grobbee, D. E., et al. (2007). Comparison of routine care self-reported and biometrical data on hypertension and diabetes: Results of the Utrecht Health Project. European Journal of Public Health, 17(2), 199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merel Kimman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Prin Vathesatogkit
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mark Woodward
    • 1
  • E-Shyong Tai
    • 4
  • Julian Thumboo
    • 5
  • Sukit Yamwong
    • 3
  • Wipa Ratanachaiwong
    • 6
  • Hwee-Lin Wee
    • 7
    Email author
  • Piyamitr Sritara
    • 3
  1. 1.The George Institute for Global HealthSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Medical SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  4. 4.Department of MedicineNational University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore
  5. 5.Department of Rheumatology and ImmunologySingapore General HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  6. 6.Medical and Health OfficeElectricity Generating Authority of ThailandNonthaburiThailand
  7. 7.Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations