Suppr超能文献

评估英格兰普通人群的健康状况:EQ-5D的三级版本和五级版本对比情况如何?

Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare?

作者信息

Feng Yan, Devlin Nancy, Herdman Mike

机构信息

Office of Health Economics, 7th Floor, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, SW1E 6QT, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Oct 21;13:171. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The EQ-5D is a brief, generic measure of health status that can be easily incorporated into population health surveys. There are two versions of the EQ-5D for use in adult populations, one with 3 response levels in each of the instrument's 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) and one with 5 levels in each dimension (EQ-5D-5L). We compared the two versions as measures of self-reported health status in representative samples of the English general population.

METHODS

EQ-5D-5L data were available from 996 respondents selected at random from residential postcodes who took part in the EQ-5D-5L value set for England study. EQ-5D-3L data were available from 7294 participants included in the 2012 Health Survey for England. Responses on the 3L and 5L versions of EQ-5D were compared by examining score distributions on the two versions, both in terms of the profile (dimensions) and the EQ-VAS. To determine the extent of variations in score according to respondent characteristics, we analysed health status reporting on the descriptive profile, EQ-5D Index, and EQ-VAS of both versions of EQ-5D by age, sex, and educational background. We used X (2) to test for differences between respondent categories when analyzing EQ-5D profile data and the t test when analyzing EQ-5D Index and VAS scores.

RESULTS

The 5L version of EQ-5D led to a considerably reduced ceiling effect and a larger proportion of respondents reporting severe health problems compared to the 3L. The 5L version also led to the use of a wider spread of health states; just 3 health states on the 3L covered 75 % of the sample, compared to 12 states on the 5L. Both versions showed poorer health status in older respondents, females, and those in a lower educational category and the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system, though not the Index or VAS, discriminated better between age groups than the 3L. There were no appreciable differences between the two versions in their ability to discriminate between groups defined by gender or educational level.

CONCLUSIONS

The new, expanded 5L version of EQ-5D may be a more useful instrument for the measurement of health status in population health surveys than the original 3L version.

摘要

背景

EQ-5D是一种简短的、通用的健康状况测量工具,可轻松纳入人群健康调查。有两个版本的EQ-5D用于成年人群,一个在该工具的5个维度中每个维度有3个回答级别(EQ-5D-3L),另一个在每个维度有5个级别(EQ-5D-5L)。我们在英国普通人群的代表性样本中比较了这两个版本作为自我报告健康状况的测量工具。

方法

EQ-5D-5L数据来自从居住邮政编码中随机选取的996名参与英格兰EQ-5D-5L价值集研究的受访者。EQ-5D-3L数据来自2012年英格兰健康调查中的7294名参与者。通过检查两个版本的得分分布,包括概况(维度)和EQ-VAS,比较EQ-5D 3L和5L版本的回答。为了确定得分根据受访者特征的变化程度,我们按年龄、性别和教育背景分析了两个版本EQ-5D在描述性概况、EQ-5D指数和EQ-VAS上的健康状况报告。在分析EQ-5D概况数据时,我们使用X(2)检验受访者类别之间的差异,在分析EQ-5D指数和VAS得分时使用t检验。

结果

与3L版本相比,EQ-5D的5L版本导致天花板效应大幅降低,报告严重健康问题的受访者比例更高。5L版本还导致使用更广泛的健康状态分布;3L版本中仅3种健康状态覆盖了75%的样本,而5L版本有12种。两个版本在老年受访者、女性以及教育程度较低的受访者中均显示出较差的健康状况,并且EQ-5D-5L描述系统(尽管不是指数或VAS)在区分年龄组方面比3L版本更好。两个版本在区分按性别或教育水平定义的组的能力方面没有明显差异。

结论

新的、扩展的EQ-5D 5L版本可能比原始的3L版本更适合用于人群健康调查中的健康状况测量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4751/4618130/5de59de5f0b2/12955_2015_356_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验