Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2983–2991 | Cite as

Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: population norms for the EQ-5D

  • Edimansyah AbdinEmail author
  • Mythily Subramaniam
  • Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar
  • Nan Luo
  • Siow Ann Chong



To provide population norms for the Euro-QoL-5D (EQ-5D) according to age, sex, ethnicity and language version using a representative sample of adults aged 18 years and above in the Singapore population.


A total of 5,594 respondents who completed the self-administrated paper-based EQ-5D in the Singapore Mental Health Study were included in this study. Socio-demographic characteristics were captured using a structured questionnaire.


The mean age of the sample was 40 years, females comprised 52.2 % of the sample and 78 % were of Chinese descent. Pain/discomfort was the most frequently reported problem (15.3 %) followed by anxiety/depression (8.2 %), whilst self-care (0.5 %) was the least frequently reported problem in the Singapore population. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that younger age, higher income, those employed and those administered English version of the questionnaire were significantly associated with higher EQ-5D index.


This article provides important population norms for the EQ-5D for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) both in clinical settings and in the research context. Our results suggest that socio-demographic factors should be taken into account when assessing HRQOL among adults in Singapore.


EQ-5D Population norms Singapore Health-related quality of life 



The study was funded by the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Ministry of Health, Singapore.


  1. 1.
    Lopez, A. D., Mathers, C. D., Ezzati, M., Jamison, D. T., & Murray, C. J. (2006). Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: Systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet, 367(9524), 1747–1757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EuroQol. (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
  3. 3.
    Singapore Department of Statistics. (2010). Population trends 2010: Department of statistics. Ministry of Trade & Industry: Republic of Singapore.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quah, J. H., Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., How, C. H., & Tay, E. G. (2011). Health-related quality of life is associated with diabetic complications, but not with short-term diabetic control in primary care. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 40(6), 276–286.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang, X. H., Li, S. C., Fong, K. Y., & Thumboo, J. (2009). The impact of health literacy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility assessment among patients with rheumatic diseases. Value Health, 12(Suppl 3), S106–S109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2010). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 565–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E. M., Li, S. C., Hopkins, R., Thumboo, J., & Lo, N. N. (2010). Use of a disease-specific instrument in economic evaluations: Mapping WOMAC onto the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health, 13(8), 873–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow, W. H., Chang, P., Lee, S. C., Wong, A., Shen, H. M., & Verkooijen, H. M. (2010). Complementary and alternative medicine among Singapore cancer patients. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 39(2), 129–135.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ong, S. C., Mak, B., Aung, M. O., Li, S. C., & Lim, S. G. (2008). Health-related quality of life in chronic hepatitis B patients. Hepatology, 47(4), 1108–1117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luo, N., Low, S., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2009). Is EQ-5D a valid quality of life instrument in patients with Parkinson’s disease? A study in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 38(6), 521–528.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao, F., Ng, G. Y., Cheung, Y. B., Thumboo, J., Pang, G., Koo, W. H., et al. (2009). The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(2), 206–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wee, H. L., Loke, W. C., Li, S. C., Fong, K. Y., Cheung, Y. B., Machin, D., et al. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore Malay and Tamil versions of the EQ-5D. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 36(6), 403–408.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., Koh, D. R., Ng, S. C., Yoon, K. H., et al. (2003). Do English and Chinese EQ-5D versions demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., Koh, D. R., Ng, S. C., Yoon, K. H., 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
  15. 15.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., Koh, D. R., Ng, S. C., Yoon, K. H., et al. (2003). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in Chinese-speaking patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 32(5), 685–690.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 316(7133), 736–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Jakubczyk, M., Wrona, W., & Hermanowski, T. (2010). Self-assessed health status in Poland: EQ-5D findings from the Polish valuation study. Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej, 120(7–8), 276–281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 309–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 621–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perneger, T. V., Combescure, C., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2010). General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health, 13(5), 631–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sorensen, J., Davidsen, M., Gudex, C., Pedersen, K. M., & Bronnum-Hansen, H. (2009). Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 467–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakas, D., Yfantopoulos, J., Dimitrakaki, C., & Tountas, Y. (2008). Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health, 11(7), 1162–1169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oppe, M., & De Charro, F. (2004). Population norms and their uses. In A. Szende & A. Williams (Eds.), Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Budapest: SpringMed Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J., Heng, D., Kwok, K. W., Lim, Y. W., Yap, M., et al. (2012). The Singapore Mental Health Study: An overview of the methodology. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21(2), 149–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chadwick, D. (2001). Monotherapy comparative trials: Equivalence and differences in clinical trials. Epilepsy Research, 45(101), 103.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rohmel, J. (1998). Therapeutic equivalence investigations: Statistical considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 1703–1714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Regional differences in health status in China: Population health-related quality of life results from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Health Place, 17(2), 671–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lubetkin, E. I., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. R. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cleemput, I. (2004). Can we explain inter-country differences in levels of health? In A. Szende & A. Williams (Eds.), Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Budapest: SpringMed Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mathers, C. D., & Schofield, D. J. (1998). The health consequences of unemployment: The evidence. Medical Journal of Australia, 168(4), 178–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Björklund, A., & Eriksson, T. (1998). Unemployment and mental health: Evidence from research in the Nordic countries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 7, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eden, L., Ejlertsson, G., & Petersson, J. (1999). Quality of life among early retirees. Experimental Aging Research, 25(4), 471–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., & Coons, S. J. (2009). Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Medical Care, 47(1), 53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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
  41. 41.
    Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J. E., Xie, F., & O’Reilly, D. (2011). Calculating utility decrements associated with an adverse event: Marginal Tobit and CLAD coefficients should be used with caution. Medical Decision Making, 1(6), 790–799.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sullivan, P. (2001). Are Utilities Bounded at 1.0? Implications for Statistical Analysis and Scale Development. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), 787–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edimansyah Abdin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mythily Subramaniam
    • 1
  • Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar
    • 1
  • Nan Luo
    • 2
  • Siow Ann Chong
    • 1
  1. 1.Research DivisionInstitute of Mental HealthSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Saw Swee Hock School of Public HealthNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations