Buchholz Ines, Thielker Kirsten, Feng You-Shan, Kupatz Peter, Kohlmann Thomas
Institute of Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany,
Qual Life Res. 2015 Apr;24(4):829-35. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x. Epub 2014 Oct 30.
To compare measurement properties and sensitivity to change of the standard version of the EQ-5D (3L) with a newly developed 5-level version (5L) in a multicenter sample of German rehabilitation inpatients (n = 230).
Rehabilitation patients (n = 114 orthopedic, n = 54 psychosomatic, n = 62 rheumatic) were asked to complete both versions of the EQ-5D and several other questionnaires at the beginning of, the end of and 3 month after inpatient rehabilitation. 3L and 5L were compared regarding missing values, ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity and sensitivity to change.
There were nearly no missing values in both questionnaires. Ceiling effects were 1.6 % points to 16.4 % points lower on average for the 5L. For psychosomatic patients, ceiling effects for 5L were as high as in the general German population. Absolute informativity (mean 5L: 1.76, 3L: 1.06) and relative informativity (5L: 0.76, 3L: 0.67) were both higher for 5L. 5L could better detect both positive and negative health changes in most dimensions and patient samples. Overall, patients made better use of the response levels of the 5L. Average proportion of inconsistent responses between 3L and 5L was 6.1 %.
Cross-sectionally and longitudinally, 5L was associated with an improved ability to detect health changes over time, reduced ceiling effects, and improved discriminatory power. Overall, these findings were in line with previous study outcomes, although differing in magnitude. Since the sample size is moderate and generalizability of the reported results is unclear, further comparisons in other patient populations will be informative and should be encouraged.
在德国康复住院患者的多中心样本(n = 230)中,比较EQ-5D标准版本(3L)与新开发的5级版本(5L)的测量属性和对变化的敏感性。
康复患者(n = 114名骨科患者,n = 54名身心疾病患者,n = 62名风湿性疾病患者)被要求在住院康复开始时、结束时以及结束后3个月完成EQ-5D的两个版本以及其他几份问卷。比较3L和5L在缺失值、天花板效应、重新分布属性、信息量和对变化的敏感性方面的差异。
两份问卷中几乎没有缺失值。5L的天花板效应平均比3L低1.6个百分点至16.4个百分点。对于身心疾病患者,5L的天花板效应与德国普通人群中的一样高。5L的绝对信息量(平均5L:1.76,3L:1.06)和相对信息量(5L:0.76,3L:0.67)均更高。在大多数维度和患者样本中,5L能更好地检测到健康状况的正向和负向变化。总体而言,患者对5L的反应水平利用得更好。3L和5L之间不一致反应的平均比例为6.1%。
从横断面和纵向来看,5L与随时间检测健康变化的能力提高、天花板效应降低以及辨别力提高相关。总体而言,这些发现与之前的研究结果一致,尽管在程度上有所不同。由于样本量适中且报告结果的可推广性尚不清楚,在其他患者群体中进行进一步比较将很有意义,应予以鼓励。