Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D in Populations with a Mean Age Of ≥ 75 years: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2022 Aug 1

PMID 35915354

Authors

Sophie Gottschalk

Hans-Helmut Konig

Mona Nejad

Judith Dams

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Healthcare interventions for middle-old and oldest-old individuals are often (economically) evaluated using the EQ-5D to measure health-related quality of life (HrQoL). This requires sufficient measurement properties of the EQ-5D. Therefore, the current study aimed to systematically review studies assessing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D in this population.

Methods: The databases PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit were searched for studies providing empirical evidence of reliability, validity, and/or responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in samples with a mean age ≥ 75 years. Studies were selected by two independent reviewers, and the methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Results were rated against updated criteria for good measurement properties (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, indeterminate). The evidence was summarized, and the quality of evidence was graded using a modified GRADE approach.

Results: For both EQ-5D versions, high-quality evidence for sufficient convergent validity was found. Known-groups validity was sufficient for the EQ-5D-5L (high-quality evidence), whereas the results were inconsistent for the EQ-5D-3L. Results regarding the reliability were inconsistent (EQ-5D-3L) or entirely lacking (EQ-5D-5L). Responsiveness based on correlations of change scores with instruments measuring related/similar constructs was insufficient for the EQ-5D-3L (high-quality evidence). For the EQ-5D-5L, the available evidence on responsiveness to change in (Hr)QoL instruments was limited.

Conclusion: Since the responsiveness of the EQ-5D in a population of middle-old and oldest-old individuals was questionable, either using additional instruments or considering the use of an alternative, more comprehensive instrument of (Hr)QoL might be advisable, especially for economic evaluations.

Citing Articles

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is an effective procedure for lateral post-meniscectomy knee osteoarthritis: a case-control study at a mean 7-year follow-up.

Yang T, Xue H, Ma T, Wen T, Xue L, Tu Y J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):284.

PMID: 40087748 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05615-4.

Path model explaining the association between fear of falling and health-related quality of life in (pre-)frail older adults.

Sattler T, Gottschalk S, Konig H, Braun T, Buchele G, Denkinger M BMC Geriatr. 2025; 25(1):87.

PMID: 39920580 PMC: 11806603. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-025-05718-x.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review.

Thompson W, Lundby C, Bleik A, Waring H, Hong J, Xi C Drugs Aging. 2024; 41(5):379-397.

PMID: 38709466 DOI: 10.1007/s40266-024-01113-0.

What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review.

Long S, Hope S Eur Geriatr Med. 2024; 15(3):629-644.

PMID: 38532081 PMC: 11329537. DOI: 10.1007/s41999-024-00964-5.

Newly developed care food enhances grip strength in older adults with dysphagia: a preliminary study.

Han H, Park Y, Kwon H, Jeong Y, Joo S, Cho M Nutr Res Pract. 2023; 17(5):934-944.

PMID: 37780213 PMC: 10522817. DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2023.17.5.934.

References

Janssen M, Szende A, Cabases J, Ramos-Goni J, Vilagut G, Konig H . Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018; 20(2):205-216. PMC: 6438939. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0955-5. View

Marten O, Greiner W . EQ-5D-5L reference values for the German general elderly population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021; 19(1):76. PMC: 7937199. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-021-01719-7. View

Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W . Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(8):1245-1257. PMC: 7561556. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8. View

Cleland J, Hutchinson C, Khadka J, Milte R, Ratcliffe J . A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019; 17(6):781-801. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00512-4. View

Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Alava M, Mukuria C . Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014; 18(9):1-224. PMC: 4780954. DOI: 10.3310/hta18090. View

Davis S, Wailoo A . A review of the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in people with urinary incontinence. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11:20. PMC: 3622573. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-20. View

Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L . EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur J Health Econ. 2014; 16(9):927-39. PMC: 4646948. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0638-9. View

Haywood K, Garratt A, Fitzpatrick R . Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(7):1651-68. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0. View

Kuspinar A, Mayo N . A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(8):759-73. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5. View

10.

Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P . Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014; 30(1):10-19. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000640. View

11.

Hounsome N, Orrell M, Tudor Edwards R . EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011; 14(2):390-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002. View

12.

Li L, Nguyen K, Comans T, Scuffham P . Utility-Based Instruments for People with Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. Value Health. 2018; 21(4):471-481. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.005. View

13.

Finch A, Brazier J, Mukuria C . What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. Eur J Health Econ. 2017; 19(4):557-570. PMC: 5913394. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x. View

14.

Payakachat N, Ali M, Tilford J . Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 33(11):1137-54. PMC: 4609224. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6. View

15.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J . A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004; 13(9):873-84. DOI: 10.1002/hec.866. View

16.

Janssen M, Pickard A, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L . Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1717-27. PMC: 3764313. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. View

17.

Olsen J, Misajon R . A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument. Qual Life Res. 2019; 29(3):733-743. PMC: 7028807. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02341-3. View

18.

Sutton E, Coast J . Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2013; 28(2):151-7. DOI: 10.1177/0269216313489368. View

19.

Milte C, Walker R, Luszcz M, Lancsar E, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J . How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013; 12(1):73-84. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0068-3. View

20.

Ratcliffe J, Lancsar E, Flint T, Kaambwa B, Walker R, Lewin G . Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2016; 26(2):299-309. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1391-6. View