Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in Six Commonly Diagnosed Cancers

Xueyun Zeng (), Mingjie Sui (), Bo Liu (), Hongbin Yang (), Rui Liu (), Rachel Lee-Yin Tan (), Juan Xu (), Erwei Zheng (), Jinjin Yang (), Chunyu Liu (), Weidong Huang (), Hongjuan Yu () and Nan Luo ()
Additional contact information
Xueyun Zeng: Harbin Medical University
Mingjie Sui: Harbin Medical University
Bo Liu: Harbin Medical University
Hongbin Yang: The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University
Rui Liu: Harbin Medical University
Rachel Lee-Yin Tan: National University of Singapore, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health
Juan Xu: Harbin Medical University
Erwei Zheng: The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University
Jinjin Yang: Harbin Medical University
Chunyu Liu: Tianjin Health Development Research Center
Weidong Huang: Harbin Medical University
Hongjuan Yu: Southern University of Science and Technology Hospital
Nan Luo: National University of Singapore, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, vol. 14, issue 2, No 5, 209-222

Abstract: Abstract Background This study aimed to compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L (3L) and EQ-5D-5L (5L) in cancer patients. Methods A consecutive sample of inpatients with lung, breast, colorectal, liver, gastric, or thyroid cancer were interviewed using the 3L, 5L, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G) questionnaires, and a subgroup was invited to complete the 3L and 5L again. Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess test–retest reliability, and Spearman’s correlation between the EQ-5D and FACT-G was evaluated to assess convergent validity. Comparison of subgroups defined using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status and cancer stage were performed to assess known-group validity and discriminatory power using the F-statistic and area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve. All analyses were also performed for each subgroup of cancer patients. Results A total of 416 cancer patients completed the baseline questionnaire and 90 patients also completed the follow-up survey after 2 days. Ceiling effects were smaller in 5L (10.1%) than in 3L (17.8%). The test–retest reliability and convergent validity of the 5L were slightly better than those of the 3L. Both the 3L and 5L showed known-group validity; however, the 5L index showed better discriminatory power. Similar trends were found in the six types of cancers. Conclusion In general, 5L appears to have better measurement properties than 3L for measuring the health-related quality of life of cancer patients. While both the 3L and 5L are suitable, 5L should be preferable to 3L for use in cancer outcomes research.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00466-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00466-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00466-z

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().