Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1625–1633 | Cite as

Responsiveness of the anxiety/depression dimension of the 3- and 5-level versions of the EQ-5D in assessing mental health

  • Katelynn Crick
  • Fatima Al Sayah
  • Arto Ohinmaa
  • Jeffrey A. JohnsonEmail author
Article

Abstract

Background

Anxiety and depression disorders are associated with significantly lower health-related quality of life (HRQL). The EQ-5D is a commonly used generic measure of HRQL; it captures mental health through a single domain—the anxiety/depression dimension. Evidence on the responsiveness of this measure in assessing changes in mental health changes is limited.

Objective

To examine the performance of the anxiety/depression dimension (A/D) of the 3- and 5-level (3L and 5L) versions of the EQ-5D in assessing changes in mental health.

Methods

Data from two patient populations were used: 495 adults post-discharge from general internal medicine ward (EQ-5D-3L), and 225 type 2 diabetes patients who screened positive for depressive symptoms (EQ-5D-5L). Anchor-based approach along with effect sizes (ES) and ROC analysis was used. Anchors included patient health questionnaire 9-items “PHQ9” and generalized anxiety disorder 2-item questionnaire “GAD2” for EQ-5D-3L, and PHQ9 and SF-12 mental composite summary scores (MCS) for EQ-5D-5L. A/D change was quantified as the difference between follow-up and baseline levels.

Results

The A/D dimension of the EQ-5D-3L showed limited responsiveness to changes in depressive symptoms measured by PHQ9 and for anxiety symptoms measured by GAD2, whereby in those who improved or deteriorated in either symptom, more than half of the patients did not have an A/D change. In the ROC analysis, the A/D dimension of the EQ-5D-3L showed weak performance with C-indices ranging from 0.58 to 0.63 and probability of detection of depressive or anxiety symptoms ranging between 20 and 40%, which are all well below acceptable ranges. Similar results were observed for the A/D dimension of the EQ-5D-5L; although the performance was slightly better, it was still below acceptable range. In patients who improved or deteriorated based on the PHQ9 or MCS, around a third had no changes on the A/D dimension. The performance of the A/D dimension of the EQ-5D-5L was also very limited with C-indices ranging between 0.67 and 0.76, and probability of detection between 50 and 67%, slightly better than that of the 3L, yet unsatisfactory.

Conclusions

Although the A/D of both EQ-5D-3L and 5L was limited in capturing changes in mental health in these populations, the 5L was slightly more responsive than the 3L. While the performance was better for depressive than anxiety symptoms, it varied by the direction of change. Further research using other measures of mental health in other populations is warranted.

Keywords

EQ-5D Responsiveness Depression Anxiety Mental health 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Fatima Al Sayah, Arto Ohinmaa, and Jeffrey A. Johnson are members of the EuroQol Group. Katelynn Crick has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study involved secondary data analysis from two studies that received ethical approval from the Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the studies used for this analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., 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(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agborsangaya, C. B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: Measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1707–1716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hybels, C. F., & Blazer, D. G. (2003). Epidemiology of late-life mental disorders. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 19(4), 663–696.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pyne, J. M., Patterson, T. L., Kaplan, R. M., & Ho, S. (1997). Preliminary longitudinal assessment of quality of life in patients with major depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 33(1), 23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Revicki, D. A., & Wood, M. (1998). Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: Differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. Journal of Affective Disorders, 48(1), 25–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sapin, C., Fantino, B., Nowicki, M.-L., & Kind, P. (2004). Usefulness of EQ-5D in assessing health status in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., et al. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stein, M. B., Roy-Byrne, P. P., Craske, M. G., Bystritsky, A., Sullivan, G., Pyne, J. M., et al. (2005). Functional impact and health utility of anxiety disorders in primary care outpatients. Medical Care, 43(12), 1164–1170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strine, T. W., Chapman, D. P., Kobau, R., & Balluz, L. (2005). Associations of self-reported anxiety symptoms with health-related quality of life and health behaviors. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40(6), 432–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Struttmann, T., Fabro, M., Romieu, G., de Roquefeuil, G., Touchon, J., Dandekar, T., et al. (1999). Quality-of-life assessment in the old using the WHOQOL 100: Differences between patients with senile dementia and patients with cancer. International Psychogeriatrics, 11(3), 273–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patrick, D. L., & Deyo, R. A. (1989). Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S217–S232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Public Health Agency of Canada. (2016). Evaluation of programs for the treatment of schizophrenia: A health economic perspective. http://www.publichealth.gc.ca. Accessed Dec 2016.
  17. 17.
    Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., 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, 887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahlon, S., Pederson, J., Majumdar, S. R., Belga, S., Lau, D., Fradette, M., et al. (2015). Association between frailty and 30-day outcomes after discharge from hospital. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(11), 799–804.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson, J. A., Al Sayah, F., Wozniak, L., Rees, S., Soprovich, A., Qiu, W., et al. (2014). Collaborative care versus screening and follow-up for patients with diabetes and depressive symptoms: Results of a primary care-based comparative effectiveness trial. Diabetes Care, 37(12), 3220–3226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rabin, R., & Charro Fd (2001). EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Löwe, B., Unützer, J., Callahan, C. M., Perkins, A. J., & Kroenke, K. (2004). Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9. Medical Care, 42(12), 1194–2201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arroll, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Crengle, S., Gunn, J., Kerse, N., Fishman, T., et al. (2010). Validation of PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 to screen for major depression in the primary care population. The Annals of Family Medicine, 8(4), 348–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2010). The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: A systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry, 32(4), 345–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skapinakis, P. (2007). The 2-item generalized anxiety disorder scale had high sensitivity and specificity for detecting GAD in primary care. Evidence Based Medicine, 12(5), 149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fleishman, J. A., Selim, A. J., Kazis, L. E.. Deriving (2010). SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores: A comparison of different scoring algorithms. Quality of Life Research, 19(2), 231–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware, J. E. K. M., & Keller, S. D. (1995). SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenthal, J. A. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21(4), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bell, M. L., & Fairclough, D. L. (2014). Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 23(5), 440–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lowe, B., Unutzer, J., Callahan, C. M., Perkins, A. J., & Kroenke, K. (2004). Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9. Medical Care, 42(12), 1194–1201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter, J. V., Pan, J., Rai, S. N., & Galandiuk, S. (2016). ROC-ing along: Evaluation and interpretation of receiver operating characteristic curves. Surgery, 159(6), 1638–1645.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143(1), 29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pyne, J. M., Patterson, T. L., Kaplan, R. M., Gillin, J. C., Koch, W. L., & Grant, I. (1997). Assessment of the quality of life of patients with major depression. Psychiatric Services, 33, 23Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salyers, M. P., Bosworth, H. B., Swanson, J. W., Lamb-Pagone, J., & Osher, F. C. (2000). Reliability and validity of the SF-12 health survey among people with severe mental illness. Medical Care, 38(11), 1141–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Supina, A. L., Johnson, J. A., Patten, S. B., Williams, J. V., & Maxwell, C. J. (2007). The usefulness of the EQ-5D in differentiating among persons with major depressive episode and anxiety. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 749–754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Traki, L., Rostom, S., Tahiri, L., Bahiri, R., Harzy, T., Abouqal, R., et al. (2014). Responsiveness of the EuroQol EQ-5D and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving tocilizumab. Clinical Rheumatology, 33(8), 1055–1060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gerhards, S. A. H., Huibers, M. J. H., Theunissen, K. A. T. M., de Graaf, L. E., Widdershoven, G. A. M., & Evers, S. M. A. A. (2011). The responsiveness of quality of life utilities to change in depression: A comparison of instruments (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and DFD). Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(5), 732–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mulhern, B., Mukuria, C., Barkham, M., Knapp, M., Byford, S., Soeteman, D., et al. (2014). Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: Psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 205(3), 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whynes, D. K., & Group, T. (2009). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to HADS-identified anxiety and depression. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(5), 820–825.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bhadhuri, A., Jowett, S., Jolly, K., & Al-Janabi, H. (2017). A comparison of the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for measuring health spillovers: A study of the family impact of meningitis. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 37(8), 882–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cheung, P. W. H., Wong, C. K. H., Lau, S. T., & Cheung, J. P. Y. (2017). Responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. European Spine Journal: Official Publication of the European Spine Society, The European Spinal Deformity Society, and The European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 27, 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nolan, C. M., Longworth, L., Lord, J., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Kon, S. S. C., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax, 71(6), 493–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wijnen, B. F. M., Mosweu, I., Majoie, M. H. J. M., Ridsdale, L., de Kinderen, R. J. A., Evers, S. M. A. A., et al. (2017). A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy. The European Journal of Health Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0928-0 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johnson, J. A., Lier, D. A., Soprovich, A., Al Sayah, F., Qiu, W., & Majumdar, S. R. (2016). Cost-effectiveness evaluation of collaborative care for diabetes and depression in primary care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(1), e13–e20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Al Sayah, F JJ, & Ohinmaa, A. (Eds.). (2016). The performance of EQ-5D-5L and VR-12 in assessing mental health. ISOQOL 23rd annual conference (pp. 19–22). Copenhagen: Quality of Life Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katelynn Crick
    • 1
  • Fatima Al Sayah
    • 1
  • Arto Ohinmaa
    • 1
  • Jeffrey A. Johnson
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Alberta PROMs and EQ-5D Research and Support Unit (APERSU), School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations