Quality of Life Research

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 621–635 | Cite as

Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D

  • Kristina Burström
  • Magnus Johannesson
  • Finn Diderichsen


Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured on population level may be useful to guide policies for health. This study aims to describe the HRQoL; in EQ-5D dimensions, mean rating scale (RS) scores and mean EQ-5D index values, in the general population, by certain disease and socio-economic groups, in Stockholm County 1998. The EQ-5D self-classifier and a RS were included in the 1998 cross-sectional postal Stockholm County public health survey to a representative sample (n = 4950, 20–88 years), 63% response rate. Mean RS score ranged from 0.90 (20–29 years) to 0.69 (80–88 years), mean EQ-5D index value ranged from 0.89 (20–29 years) to 0.74 (80–88 years). For different diseases mean RS scores ranged from 0.80 (asthma) to 0.69 (angina pectoris), mean EQ-5D index values ranged from 0.79 (asthma) to 0.66 (low back pain). The mean health state scores (RS and EQ-5D index) were 0.06 lower in the unskilled manual group than in the higher non-manual group after controlling for age and sex (p < 0.0001). This difference was 0.03 after controlling also for different diseases (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, our results show that the HRQoL varies greatly between socio-economic and disease groups. Furthermore, after controlling for age, sex and disease, HRQoL is lower in manual than in non-manual groups.

EQ-5D General population Health-related quality of life Rating scale Socio-economic group 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Spilker B, Revicki DA. Taxonomy of quality of life. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torrance GW. Measurements of health states utilities for economic appraisal: A review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks R. Health Status Measurement: A Perspective on Change. London: MacMillan, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol — A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams A. The role of the EuroQol instrument in QALY calculations, discussion paper 130. University of York: York Centre for Health Economics, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time-trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalog of health state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks R, with the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ohinmaa A, Eija H, Sintonen H. Modelling EuroQol values of Finnish adult population. In: Badia X, Herdman M, Segura A (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting, discussion papers. Barcelona: Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1995: 67–76.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claes C, Greiner W, Uber A, Shulenburg J-M. The new German version of the EuroQol quality of life questionnaire. In: Rabin RE, Busschbach JJV, de Charro FTh, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting Rotterdam 1997, discussion papers. Rotterdam: Centre for Health Policy and Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1998: 1–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, van der Maas PJ. Valuations of health states by the general public: Feasibility of a standardised measurement procedure. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31: 1201–1206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nord E. EuroQol. Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time tradeoff. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 303–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooks R, Jendteg S, Lindgren B, Persson U, Björk S. EuroQol: Health-related quality of life. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy 1991; 18: 37–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Björk S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ 1999; 8: 117–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G. Valuation of EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 421–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-36 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000; 38: 115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H. Quality of life of the Finnish population as measured by the EuroQol. In: Badia X, Herdman M, Segura A (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting, discussion papers. Barcelona: Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1995: 67–76.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol 5–D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 311–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br Med J 1998; 316: 736–741.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-36 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 155–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 128–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur J Public Health 1999; 9: 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Statistics Sweden. Yrkesklassificeringar i FoB 85 enligt Nordisk yrkesklassificering (NYK) och Socioekonomisk indelning (SEI). Occupations in Population and Housing Census 1985 (FoB 85) according to Nordic standard occupational classification and Swedish socio-economic classification. Reports on Statistical Co-ordination. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Björk S, Althin R. Health states considered worse than being dead. In: Björk S (ed), EuroQol Conference Proceedings, October 1991, Sweden. IHE Working Paper, Lund: IHE, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macran S, Kind P. 'Death’ and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 217–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edn., Vols. 1 and 2, NC: SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 1989.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selvin S. Statistical Analysis of Epidemiological Data. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    White H. A heteroscedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 1980; 48: 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS/ETS Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.11. NC: SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preference for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4(3): 315–329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Peterson J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(5): 505–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making 1996; 16(3): 217–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998; 80(2): 189–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ 1999; 8(6): 541–545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D, discussion paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(1): 81–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cutler DM, Richardson E. Measuring the health of the US population. Brookings paper on Economic Activity, Microeconomics 1997: 217–271.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cutler DM, Richardson E. The value of health: 1970–1990. Am Econ Rev Papers and Proceedings 1998; 88: 97–100.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Välfärd, ofärd och ojämlikhet — levnadsförhållanden under 1990–talet. Welfare, misfortune and inequality — living conditions during the 1990s. SOU 2000:41. Stockholm: Norstedts tryckeri AB, 2000. (In Swedish).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    OECD. OECD Health Data 2000. Paris: Credes, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina Burström
    • 1
  • Magnus Johannesson
    • 2
  • Finn Diderichsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Social MedicineKarolinska InstitutetSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Health EconomicsStockholm School of EconomicsSweden

Personalised recommendations