Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement properties of two versions of EQ-5D (i.e.EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in hypertensive patients in rural China.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was carried out in hypertensive patients in rural China. We compared the ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity, known-groups validity, and relative efficiency of the 3L and 5L and examined their agreement.

Results

A total of 11,412 patients were enrolled in our study. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.84 (SD 0.21) according to the 5L and 0.86 (SD 0.17) according to the 3L. A good agreement was observed between the 3L and 5L. The overall ceiling effect decreased from 46.4% (3L) to 29.4% (5L). The Shannon index, H′ improved in all dimensions when used 5L. When used 3L, the median responses of all groups were consistent with 5L across the three dimensions of ‘mobility’, ‘self-care’, ‘usual activities’, while the median responses were inconsistent for the ‘pain/discomfort’ and ‘anxiety/depression’ dimensions. The 3L performed better in eight comorbidities in terms of F-statistics and six comorbidities in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). The 5L performed better both in terms of the F-statistics and AUROCs in age, education level, anti-hypertensive medication use.

Conclusion

Taking all comparisons into account, we recommend the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients with hypertension in rural China.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Manuscript is approved by all authors for publication.

Software application

Microsoft Word 2010.

References

  1. Christell, H., Birch, S., Horner, K., Lindh, C., & Rohlin, M. (2014). Economic evaluation of diagnostic methods used in dentistry A systematic review. Journal of Dentistry, 42(11), 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.07.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Earnshaw, J., & Lewis, G. (2008). NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics, 26(9), 725–727. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cleemput, I., Neyt, M., Van de Sande, S., & Thiry, N. (2012). Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses (2nd ed.). Brussels: KCE = Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg = Centre Fédéral d'Expertise des Soins de Santé = Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Retrieved January, 22 2017.

  4. Rencz, F., Gulacsi, L., Drummond, M., Golicki, D., Prevolnik Rupel, V., Simon, J., et al. (2016). EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Quality of Life Research, 25(11), 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., et al. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 316(10), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Massetti, M., Aballea, S., Videau, Y., Remuzat, C., Roiz, J., & Toumi, M. (2015). A comparison of HAS and NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments. Journal of Market Access and Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.24966.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. EuroQoL. (1990). EuroQoL—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(5), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00609-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2013). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 885–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0200-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQoL study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li, L., Liu, C., Cai, X., Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., et al. (2019). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5L in family caregivers of leukemia patients. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5721-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Xia, J., Wu, N. W., Ma, T. P., Yu, C., & Li, N. X. (2020). Evaluation of reliability and validity of EQ-5D-5L based on residents in southwest China. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 51(5), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.12182/20200960504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fang, H., Farooq, U., Wang, D., Yu, F., Younus, M. I., & Guo, X. (2016). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-3L for Kashin-Beck disease in China. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1924. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3613-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60078-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheung, P. W. H., Wong, C. K. H., Samartzis, D., Luk, K. D. K., Lam, C. L. K., Cheung, K. M. C., et al. (2016). Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, 11, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0083-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang, H. M., Patrick, D. L., Edwards, T. C., Skalicky, A. M., Zeng, H. Y., & Gu, W. W. (2012). Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9915-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tamási, B., Brodszky, V., Péntek, M., Gulácsi, L., Hajdu, K., Sárdy, M., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. British Journal of Dermatology, 180(4), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Qi, S. F., Zhang, B., Wang, H. J., Yan, J., Mi, Y. J., Liu, D. W., et al. (2016). Prevalence of hypertension subtypes in 2011 and the trends from 1991 to 2011 among Chinese adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(5), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kearney, P. M., Whelton, M., Reynolds, K., Muntner, P., Whelton, P. K., & He, J. (2005). Global burden of hypertension: Analysis of worldwide data. Lancet, 365(9455), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramahi, T. M. (2010). Cardiovascular disease in the Asia Middle East region: Global trends and local implications. Asia–Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22(3 Suppl), 83S-89S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539510373034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu, Y., Tang, W., Ding, X., Mao, D., Chen, L., & Jiao, Y. (2019). Analysis of disease burden for hypertension and hypertensive heart or kidney complications in residents of Chongqing from 2012 to 2018. Chinese Journal of Prevention and Control of Chronic Diseases, 27(11), 818–821+826.

  29. National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases. (2015). Report on Cardiovascular Disease in China 2014. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, China.

  30. Lu, J., Lu, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Linderman, G. C., Wu, C., et al. (2017). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from 1·7 million adults in a population-based screening study (China PEACE Million Persons Project). Lancet, 390(10112), 2549–2558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32478-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Li, D., Lv, J., Liu, F., Liu, P., Yang, X., Feng, Y., et al. (2015). Hypertension burden and control in mainland China: Analysis of nationwide data 2003–2012. International Journal of Cardiology, 184, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Su, M., Zhang, Q., Bai, X., Wu, C., Li, Y., Mossialos, E., et al. (2017). Availability, cost, and prescription patterns of antihypertensive medications in primary health care in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 390(10112), 2559–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32476-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang, J. G. (2015). Chinese hypertension guidelines. Pulse (Basel), 3(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000382025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wu, Y., Huxley, R., Li, L., Anna, V., Xie, G., Yao, C., et al. (2008). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from the China National Nutrition and Health Survey 2002. Circulation, 118(25), 2679–2686. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.108.788166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang, Z., Liu, R., Li, P., Jiang, C., & Hao, M. (2014). How to make diagnosis related groups payment more feasible in developing countries—A case study in Shanghai China. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(5), 572–578.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Martí-Pastor, M., Pont, A., Ávila, M., Garin, O., Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., et al. (2018). Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics, 16(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-018-0170-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bilbao, A., García-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., García, I., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Trujillo-Martín, E., et al. (2018). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309(5), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jia, Y. X., Cui, F. Q., Li, L., Zhang, D. L., Zhang, G. M., Wang, F. Z., et al. (2014). Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2355–2363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu, J., Yan, X. X., Liu, C. C., Wang, H., Wang, L., Cao, S. M., et al. (2020). Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: Suggestions for instrument choosing. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mulhern, B., Feng, Y., Shah, K., Janssen, M. F., Herdman, M., van Hout, B., et al. (2018). Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rabin, R., Oppe, O. M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L user guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Version 1.0. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yang, F., Jiang, S., He, X. N., Li, H. C., Wu, H. Y., Zhang, T. T., et al. (2020). Do rural residents in China understand EQ-5D-5L as intended? Evidence from a qualitative study. Pharmacoeconomics Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00212-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Liang, Z., Zhang, T., Lin, T., Liu, L., Wang, B., Fu, A. Z., et al. (2019). Health-related quality of life among rural men and women with hypertension: Assessment by the EQ-5D-5L in Jiangsu, China. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02139-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in 2018. https://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201902/t201902281651265.html.

  50. Tabulation of the 2010 population census of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm.

  51. Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value in Health, 11(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sui, H., Wang, W., Chen, W., & Ma, L. (2015). Chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community 2014. Journal of Hypertension, 33, E261–E261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bas Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pan, C. W., Sun, H. P., Wang, X., Ma, Q., Xu, Y., Luo, N., et al. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1767–1774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., & Coons, S. J. (2009). Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Medical Care, 47(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d92f8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Genovese, B. J., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1997). Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 557–569.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Grimm, S., Pudney, S., Gomes, M., Sadique, Z., et al. (2018). EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value in Health, 21(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Yang, F., Devlin, N., & Luo, N. (2019). Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: Does how the utilities are derived matter? Value in Health, 22(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Feng, Y., Herdman, M., van Nooten, F., Cleeland, C., Parkin, D., Ikeda, S., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1541-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 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(3), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Rencz, F., Lakatos, P. L., Gulácsi, L., Brodszky, V., Kürti, Z., Lovas, S., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 28(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2003-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y. S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Gao, J., Wang, D., Zhang, Q., Zhou, Z., et al. (2016). Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors for patients with hypertension: Evidence from the urban and rural areas of Shaanxi Province, China. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1536-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Xu, R. H., Cheung, A. W. L., & Wong, E. L. (2017). Examining the health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-5L in patients with four kinds of chronic diseases from specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong SAR, China. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s143944.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Luo, N. (2018). Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Devlin, N., Brazier, J., Pickard, A. S., & Stolk, E. (2018). 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE conundrum. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 637–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0622-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Rundgren, J., Enocson, A., Mellstrand Navarro, C., & Bergström, G. (2018). Responsiveness of EQ-5D in patients with a distal radius fracture. Hand (N Y), 13(5), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717725378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlińska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Yang, J., et al. (2020). A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

We thank Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (201704020198) and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2020A1515010990) for funding this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jie Jiang, Yanming Hong and Tiantian Zhang have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Jie Jiang, Yanming Hong, Tiantian Zhang, Zhihao Yang, Zhuoru Liang & Peiyao Lu

  2. Dongguan Institute of Jinan University, Dongguan, People’s Republic of China

    Jie Jiang

  3. Guangzhou Huabo Biopharmaceutical Research Institute, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Tiantian Zhang

  4. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Tengfei Lin & Lishun Liu

  5. Shenzhen Evergreen Medical Institute, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

    Binyan Wang

  6. Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, People’s Republic of China

    Binyan Wang

  7. School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Yongmei Xu

  8. Institute for Enterprise Development, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    Yongmei Xu

  9. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Nan Luo

Authors
  1. Jie Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanming Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiantian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhihao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tengfei Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhuoru Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peiyao Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lishun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Binyan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yongmei Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Nan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JJ, YH, TZ, ZY, TL, ZL, PL, LL, BW contributed to acquisition of data. JJ, YH, TZ analyzed, interpreted the data, draft and revise the manuscript. NL and YX contributed to conception, design and the interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yongmei Xu or Nan Luo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

Informed consent

Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, J., Hong, Y., Zhang, T. et al. Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China. Qual Life Res 30, 2045–2060 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation