Quality of Life Research

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 273–282 | Cite as

Validity and responsiveness of the EuroQol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial

  • A.W. Wu
  • D.L. Jacobson
  • K.D. Frick
  • R. Clark
  • D.A. Revicki
  • K.A. Freedberg
  • J. Scott-Lennox
  • J. Feinberg


Objective: Brief utility measures are needed in clinical trials in addition to existing descriptive measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We examined the reliability and validity of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and MOS-HIV and their responsiveness to HIV-related clinical events. Methods: Subjects with advanced HIV disease (CD4 < 100) were enrolled in a randomized trial for CMV prophylaxis (n = 990). The EQ-5D includes a weighted sum of five domains (EQ-5D Index) and a visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The MOS-HIV has 10 subscales and physical (PHS) and mental health summary scores (MHS). Construct validity of the EQ-5D was tested based on hypothesized relationships to subscales of the MOS-HIV. Relative precision and responsiveness to adverse experiences and opportunistic infections (OIs) were compared for the two instruments. Results: Mean age of the patients was 38, 94% were male, 80% white, and 7% had injected drugs. Mean baseline scores for EQ-5D Index and EQ-VAS were 0.80 and 76.0, respectively, 28 and 4% reported maximum scores. Mean MOS-HIV subscales score ranged from 55 (role) to 84 (cognitive); mean PHS and MHS were 47.4 and 49.5, respectively. Correlations between MOS-HIV subscales and EQ-5D Index ranged from 0.45 (role) to 0.63 (pain); correlations with EQ-VAS ranged from 0.33 (cognitive) to 0.66 (health perceptions). Correlations between MOS-HIV PHS and MHS with EQ-5D Index were 0.61 and 0.58; and with EQ-VAS, 0.57 and 0.60, respectively. Responsiveness to adverse experiences was highest for MOS-HIV pain and PHS (effect sizes = 0.9 and 0.4); pain had the highest relative precision (2.4) for adverse experiences; EQ-VAS had the greatest relative precision (1.6) for developing an OI. Conclusion: In these patients with advanced HIV disease, EQ-5D showed good construct validity, but there may be a ceiling effect for its EQ-5D Index component. EQ-5D was less responsive to adverse events than the MOS-HIV. However, the EQ-VAS was most sensitive to developing an OI and is likely to be a useful measure of HRQOL for generating QALYs in cost-utility studies involving patients with advanced HIV disease.

AIDS Clinical trial EuroQol Health-related quality of life MOS-HIV Validity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC (eds) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torrance GW. Societal preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10: 120.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    James M, St Leger S, Rowsell KV. Prioritising elective care: A cost utility analysis of orthopaedics in the north west of England. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1996; 50: 182-189.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Badia X, Diaz-Prieto A, Rue M, Patrick DL. Measuring health and health state preferences among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 1379-1384.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacDonagh RP, Cliff AM, Speakman PJ, O'Boyle PJ, Ewings P, Gudex C. The use of generic measures of health-related quality of life in the assessment of outcome from transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol 1997; 79: 401-408.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sculpher MJ, Dwyer N, Byford S, Stirrat GM. Randomised trial comparing hysterectomy and transcervical endometrial resection: Effect on health related quality of life and costs two years after surgery. Br J Obs Gynaecol 1996; 103: 142-149.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Essink-Bot ML, Van Royen L, Krabbe P, Bonsel GJ, Rutten FFH. The impact of migraine on health status. Headache 1995; 35: 200-206.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richards DM, Irving MH. Assessing the quality of life of patients with intestinal failure on home parenteral nutrition. Gut 1997; 40: 218-222.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norum J, Angelsen V, Wist E, Olsen JA. Treatment costs in Hodgkin's disease: A cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 1510-1517.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 155-166.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures: The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA Charts and the EuroQol Instrument. Medical Care 1997; 35: 522-537.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu AW, Rubin HR, Mathews WC, et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medical Outcomes Study: Preliminary validation in persons with early HIV infection. Med Care 1991; 29: 786-798.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu AW, Revicki DA, Jacobson DL, Malitz FE. Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV). Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 481-493.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feinberg JE, Hurwitz S, Cooper D, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial of valaciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus disease in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Infect Dis 1998; 177: 48-56.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 609-615.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Revicki DA, Sorenson S, Wu AW. Reliability and validity of physical and mental health summary scores from the Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey. Med Care 1998; 36:126-137.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JFR. The validity and relative precision of MOS short-and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992; 3:MS253-MS265.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 027: S178-S189.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403-408.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyatt GH, King D, Feeny DH, Subbing D, Goldstein RS. Generic and specific measurement of health related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 187-192.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Revicki DA, Wu AW, Murray MI. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Med Care 1995; 33:AS173-AS182.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 169-180.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095-1108.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wakker P, Stigglebout A. Explaining distortion in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices. Med Decis Making 1995; 5: 180-86.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brazier JE, Walter SJ, Nicholl JP, Kohler B. Using the SF-36 and EuroQol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 195-204.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, et al. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement. Clin Orthoped Rel Res 1996; 331: 221-225.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Revicki DA, Wu AW, Murray MI. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Med Care 1995; 33: AS173-AS182.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Busschbach JJV, Horikx PE, Van den Bosch JMM, De la Riviere AB, De Charro FT. Measuring the quality of life before and after bilateral lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest 1994; 105: 911-917.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group, Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, et al. Validity of EuroQol-a generic health status instrument-in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33: 655-662.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G. Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) healthstates in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 421-433.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 329-334.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu AW, Jacobson D, Berzon R, et al. The effect of mode of administration on medical outcomes study health ratings and EuroQoL scores in AIDS. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 3-10.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zug KA, Littenberg B, Baughman RD, et al. Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis: A quantitative, utility approach. Archives of Dermatology 1995; 131: 561-568.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wu AW, Hays RD, Kelly S, Malitz F, Bozzette SA. Applications of the Medical Outcomes Study health-related quality of life measures in HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 531-554.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.W. Wu
    • 1
  • D.L. Jacobson
    • 1
  • K.D. Frick
    • 1
  • R. Clark
    • 1
  • D.A. Revicki
    • 2
  • K.A. Freedberg
    • 3
  • J. Scott-Lennox
    • 4
  • J. Feinberg
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.MEDTAP InternationalBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Boston Medical CenterBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  4. 4.Outcomes Research Associates, Inc.HillsboroughUSA
  5. 5.Holmes DivisionUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations