Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 443–447 | Cite as

The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population

  • Andreas HinzEmail author
  • Thomas Kohlmann
  • Yve Stöbel-Richter
  • Markus Zenger
  • Elmar Brähler
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

The health state classifier EQ-5D of the EuroQoL group has been expanded to a 5-level instrument (EQ-5D-5L), but studies on psychometric properties of this new instrument, applied to the general population, are rare.

Methods

A sample of 2,469 subjects, representatively selected from the German general population, was asked to fill in the EQ-5D-5L and several other questionnaires. Crude sum scores of the EQ-5D-5L were calculated and compared with scores derived from two sets of utilities, one from a German and one from a UK sample.

Results

The mean sum score (0–100 scale) was 91.5. Males reported better health states than females, and there was a nearly linear age trend. The list of the 45 most frequent health patterns (those with at least 0.2 % of the respondents) showed that almost half of the participants (47.5 %) responded being in the optimal health state, indicating a ceiling effect. Correlations between EQ-5D-5L scores and other questionnaires were very similar for all three scoring systems of the EQ-5D-5L. Finally, normative scores are given on the basis of sum scores.

Conclusions

The applicability of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population is limited because of the skewness. Sum scores are useful because of their simplicity, international generalizability, and construct validity.

Keywords

Quality of life EQ-5D Normative values Reference values 

References

  1. 1.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdin, E., Subramaniam, M., Vaingankar, J. A., Luo, N., & Chong, S. A. (2013). Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: Population norms for the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0405-x.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7, 311–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hinz, A., Klaiberg, A., Brahler, E., & Konig, H. H. (2006). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D: Modelling and norm values for the general population [Der Lebensqualitaetsfragebogen EQ-5D: Modelle und Normwerte fuer die Allgemeinbevoelkerung]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 56, 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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, 736–741.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Oppe, M., & Krabbe, P. F. M. (2012). Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: Discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling. Value in Health, 15, A198–A199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golicki, D., Zawodnik, S., Janssen, M. F., Kiljan, A., & Hermanowski, T. (2010). Psychometric comparison of EQ-5D and EQ-5D-5L in a student population. Value in Health, 13, A240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pickard, A. S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G., Rosenbloom, S., & Cella, D. (2007). Evaluating equivalency between response systems—Application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Medical Care, 45, 812–819. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45, 259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y. S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., et al. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value in Health, 15, 708–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Wilke, C. T., Pickard, A. S., Walton, S. M., Moock, J., Kohlmann, T., & Lee, T. A. (2010). Statistical implications of utility weighted and equally weighted HRQL measures: An empirical study. Health Economics, 19, 101–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Craig, B. M., Busschbach, J. J. V., & Salomon, J. A. (2009). Keep it simple: Ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 296–305.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder—The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9—Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    van de Poll-Franse, L., Mols, F., Gundy, C. M., Creutzberg, C. L., Nout, R. A., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., et al. (2011). Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-sexuality items in the general Dutch population. European Journal of Cancer, 47, 667–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morfeld, M., Bullinger, M., Nantke, J., & Brahler, E. (2005). The version 2.0 of the SF-36 Health Survey: Results of a population-representative study. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, 50, 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Derogar, M., van der Schaaf, M., & Lagergren, P. (2012). Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire in a random sample of the Swedish population. Acta Oncologica, 51, 10–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Hinz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Kohlmann
    • 2
  • Yve Stöbel-Richter
    • 1
  • Markus Zenger
    • 1
  • Elmar Brähler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Psychology and Medical SociologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Community MedicineUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations