Evaluating the Discriminatory Power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US General Population Survey Using Shannon's Indices

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2007 Feb 13

PMID 17294285

Citations 32

Authors

Mathieu F Bas Janssen

Erwin Birnie

Gouke J Bonsel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare quantitatively the discriminatory power of the EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in terms of absolute and relative informativity, using Shannon's indices.

Methods: EQ-5D and HUI2/3 data completed by a sample of the general adult US population (N = 3,691) were used. Five dimensions allowed head-to-head comparison of informativity: Mobility/Ambulation; Anxiety/Depression/Emotion; Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D; HUI2; HUI3); Self-Care (EQ-5D; HUI2); and Cognition (HUI2; HUI3). Shannon's index and Shannon's Evenness index were used to assess absolute and relative informativity, both by dimension and by instrument as a whole.

Results: Absolute informativity was highest for HUI3, with the largest differences in Pain/Discomfort and Cognition. Relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D, with the largest differences in Mobility/Ambulation and Anxiety/Depression/Emotion. Absolute informativity by instrument was consistently highest for HUI3 and lowest for EQ-5D, and relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D and lowest for HUI3.

Discussion: Performance in terms of absolute and relative informativity of the common dimensions of the three instruments varies over dimensions. Several dimensions are suboptimal: Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D) seems too crude with only 3 levels, and the level descriptions of Ambulation (HUI3) and Self-Care (HUI2) could be improved. In absence of a formal measure, Shannon's indices provide useful measures for assessing discriminatory power of utility instruments.

Citing Articles

Psychometric benefits of adding bolt-ons to the EQ-5D-5L in populations undergoing minimally invasive cosmetic procedures.

Muller E, Nikl A, Krebs M, Hollo P, Brodszky V, Kemeny L Eur J Health Econ. 2025; .

PMID: 40075019 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-025-01772-9.

Buchholz M, Pfaff M, Iskandar A, Reetz K, Schulz J, Grobe-Einsler M Neurol Ther. 2024; 14(1):379-398.

PMID: 39738982 PMC: 11762039. DOI: 10.1007/s40120-024-00694-7.

Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life of Adult Patients with Intermediate Burns: The Added Value of an Itching and Cognition Item for the EQ-5D: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Dijkshoorn J, Haagsma J, van der Vlies C, Hop M, van Baar M, Spronk I Eur Burn J. 2024; 3(2):264-277.

PMID: 39599998 PMC: 11575368. DOI: 10.3390/ebj3020023.

Validation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L parent-proxy version among children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Ohinmaa A, Wen J, Currie G, Benseler S, Swart J, Vastert S Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(10):2677-2691.

PMID: 39141175 PMC: 11452410. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03682-4.

Bajenaru O, Nuta C, Bajenaru L, Balog A, Constantinescu A, Andronic O J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38929932 PMC: 11204048. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123403.

References

Guyatt G, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R . Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45(12):1341-5. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90194-r. View

Rao G, Hamid Z, Rao J . The information content of DNA and evolution. J Theor Biol. 1979; 81(4):803-7. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(79)90282-0. View

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(3):169-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF00435221. View

Brazier J, Deverill M . A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999; 8(1):41-51. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::aid-hec395>3.0.co;2-#. View

Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A . A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999; 3(9):i-iv, 1-164. View

Myers C, Wilks D . Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Qual Life Res. 1999; 8(1-2):9-16. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026459027453. View

Miller G, FRICK F . Statistical behavioristics and sequences of responses. Psychol Rev. 1949; 56(6):311-24. DOI: 10.1037/h0060413. View

Shaw J, Johnson J, Coons S . US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):203-20. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003. View

Johnson J, Luo N, Shaw J, Kind P, Coons S . Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):221-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00004. View

10.

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. PMC: 293474. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54. View

11.

Murray C, Lopez A . Progress and directions in refining the global burden of disease approach: a response to Williams. Health Econ. 2000; 9(1):69-82. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200001)9:1<69::aid-hec493>3.0.co;2-i. View

12.

Coons S, Rao S, Keininger D, Hays R . A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17(1):13-35. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002. View

13.

Sintonen H . The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):328-36. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002086. View

14.

Rabin R, de Charro F . EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):337-43. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002087. View

15.

Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R . The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):375-84. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002092. View

16.

Mishoe S, Maclean J . Assessment of health-related quality of life. Respir Care. 2001; 46(11):1236-57. View

17.

Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P . Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003; 41(2):218-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000044901.57067.19. View

18.

Kopec J, Willison K . A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56(4):317-25. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00609-1. View

19.

Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor M . Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003; 41(7):791-801. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200307000-00003. View

20.

Guyatt G, Feeny D, Patrick D . Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118(8):622-9. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009. View