Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Views of the UK General Public on Important Aspects of Health Not Captured by EQ-5D

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The EQ-5D is a standardised instrument designed for use as a generic measure of health outcome. It was (and is) intended to provide information about a ‘common core’ of dimensions known to be relevant across a range of conditions; however, the five dimensions may not fully capture the health-related impacts of certain conditions. This study analyses the views of the UK general public about important aspects of health considered to be missing from the instrument.

Methods

Survey respondents were asked whether there are any aspects of health they consider to be important but are not captured by the EQ-5D, and, if so, what these aspects are. The responses (text comments) were analysed using content analysis with analyst triangulation. Data were collected from a broadly representative sample of the general public via a paper questionnaire administered as part of face-to-face interviews.

Results

Data are available for 436 respondents, 179 of whom suggested aspects of health they considered important but not captured by the five EQ-5D dimensions. These were organised into 22 themes. Sensory deprivation and mental health were the health aspects most commonly mentioned by respondents.

Conclusions

Respondents identified several important aspects of health that are not covered by the EQ-5D descriptive system. This study can provide the basis for more detailed qualitative and quantitative research—in particular to examine the views of different patient groups—to inform further review of the EQ-5D descriptive system. The results also have implications for the sensitivity of other generic measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grad FP. The preamble of the constitution of the World Health Organization. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(12):982.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ. 2011;26:343.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jadad AR, O’Grady L. How should health be defined? BMJ. 2008;337:a2900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol Instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Williams A. The EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11:275–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:645–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brooks R. Health status measurement: a perspective on change. Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd; 1995.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. van Dalen H, Williams A, Gudex C. Lay people’s evaluations of health: are there variations between different subgroups? J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994;48:248–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):395–413.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez-Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition specific measures of health related quality of life in NICE decision making: systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4016–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Krabbe PFM, Stouthard ME, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel G. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multiattribute health-status classification system. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaarlola A, Pettilä V, Kekki P. Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2014;30(12):2245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, et al. Using preference based measures in mental health conditions: the psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Boye KS, Edson-Heredia E, Bowman L, Janssen B. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18(1):52–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Shah K, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. An empirical study of two alternative comparators for use in time trade-off studies. Value Health. 2016;19:53–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 1999;34(5 Part 2):1189–208.

  28. Office for National Statistics. Census: digitised boundary data (England and Wales) [computer file]. UK Data Service Census Support; 2011. Available at: http://edina.ac.uk/ukborders. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  29. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Selai C. Understanding health state valuations: a qualitative analysis of respondents’ comments. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(7):1265–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Connell J, O’Cathain A, Brazier J. Measuring quality of life in mental health: are we asking the right questions? Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Janssen MF, Krabbe PFM, Lamers L, Oppe M, Stolk E, Vermeulen K, et al. The Cognition dimension revisited: a detailed study on its added value and interactions with EQ-5D core dimensions. In: Paper presented at the EuroQol plenary meeting: Montreal; 2013.

  32. Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, King M, Craig B, et al. Deriving a preference based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. 2011;14(5):721–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mulhern B, Rowen D, Brazier J, Smith S, Tait R, Watchurst C, et al. Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U: generation of preference based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy for use in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(5):1–140. doi:10.3310/hta17050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mavranezouli I, Brazier JE, Rowen D, Barkham M. Estimating a preference-based index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(3):381–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brazier JE, Roberts J. Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, Lohr KN. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Public Health. 1981;71(6):620–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Koonal Shah and Brendan Mulhern conceived and initiated the study, and jointly managed the data collection process. Koonal Shah managed the data analysis process. Brendan Mulhern, Louise Longworth and Bas Janssen contributed to the data analysis. Koonal Shah drafted the manuscript. Brendan Mulhern, Louise Longworth and Bas Janssen commented on the draft manuscript and contributed to the re-drafting. We are grateful for the contributions of Liz Flower, Rachel Ibbotson, Arnd Jan Prause and Arto Ohinmaa. We also wish to thank the interviewers and respondents who took part in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK

    Koonal Kirit Shah

  2. Centre for Health Economics and Research Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, 1-59 Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia

    Brendan Mulhern

  3. PHMR Limited, Berkeley Works, Berkley Grove, London, NW1 8XY, UK

    Louise Longworth

  4. Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    M. F. Janssen

Authors
  1. Koonal Kirit Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brendan Mulhern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Louise Longworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. F. Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koonal Kirit Shah.

Ethics declarations

This study was funded by a grant from the EuroQol Research Foundation. The views expressed by the authors in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Research Foundation. Koonal Shah is a member of the EuroQol Group, the group that developed the EQ-5D family of instruments. He regularly undertakes research that is funded by grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation. Brendan Mulhern is a member of the EuroQol Group, the group that developed the EQ-5D family of instruments. He regularly undertakes research that is funded by grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation. Louise Longworth is a member of the EuroQol Group, the group that developed the EQ-5D family of instruments. She regularly undertakes research that is funded by grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation. She was employed by Brunel University London when the data analysis and analysis for this study was undertaken. Bas Janssen is a member of the EuroQol Group, the group that developed the EQ-5D family of instruments. He regularly undertakes research that is funded by grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, K.K., Mulhern, B., Longworth, L. et al. Views of the UK General Public on Important Aspects of Health Not Captured by EQ-5D. Patient 10, 701–709 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0240-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0240-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation