Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
School of Public Health, Fudan University, 130 Dong An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
BMC Public Health. 2023 Nov 22;23(1):2314. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17208-z.
To compare measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in university staff and students in China.
A total of 291 staff and 183 undergraduates or postgraduates completed the two instruments assigned in a random order. The health utility scores (HUS) of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 were calculated using the respective value sets for Chinese populations. The agreement of HUSs was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Convergent validity of their HUSs and similar dimensions were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Known-group validity of the HUSs and EQ-VAS score was assessed by comparing the scores of participants with and without three conditions (i.e., disease, symptom or discomfort, and injury), as well as number of any of the three conditions; their sensitivity was also compared.
The ICCs between the two HUSs were 0.567 (staff) and 0.553 (students). Bland-Altman plot found that EQ-5D-5L HUSs were generally higher. Strong correlation was detected for two similar dimensions (pain/discomfort of EQ-5D-5L and pain of SF-6DV2; anxiety/depression of EQ-5D-5L and mental health of SF-6DV2) in both samples. The correlation between the two HUSs were strong (0.692 for staff and 0.703 for students), and were stronger than their correlations with EQ-VAS score. All the three scores could discriminate the difference in three known-groups (disease, symptom or discomfort, number of any of the three conditions). The two HUSs were more sensitive than EQ-VAS score; and either of them was not superior than the other.
Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 HUSs have acceptable measurement properties (convergent validity, known-groups validity, sensitivity) in Chinese university staff and students. Nevetheless, only EQ-5D-5L (PD and AD) and SF-6DV2 (PN and MH) showed indicated good convergent validity as expected. Two types of HUSs cannot be used interchangeably, and each has its own advantages in sensitivity.
比较 EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6Dv2 在我国高校教职工和学生人群中的测量性能。
共纳入 291 名教职工和 183 名本科生或研究生，以随机顺序完成这两种工具的评估。使用中国人群的各自效用值量表计算 EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6Dv2 的健康效用评分（HUS）。采用组内相关系数（ICC）和 Bland-Altman 图评估 HUS 的一致性。采用 Spearman 相关系数评估其 HUS 和相似维度的趋同效度。通过比较有和无三种情况（疾病、症状或不适以及损伤）以及三种情况中任何一种情况的参与者的评分，评估 HUS 和 EQ-VAS 评分的已知组有效性；还比较了它们的敏感性。
两种 HUS 之间的 ICC 分别为 0.567（教职工）和 0.553（学生）。Bland-Altman 图发现 EQ-5D-5L HUS 通常更高。在两个样本中，两个相似维度（EQ-5D-5L 的疼痛/不适和 SF-6Dv2 的疼痛；EQ-5D-5L 的焦虑/抑郁和 SF-6Dv2 的心理健康）之间均存在强相关性。两种 HUS 之间的相关性较强（教职工为 0.692，学生为 0.703），且均强于其与 EQ-VAS 评分的相关性。所有三个评分均能区分三种已知组（疾病、症状或不适、三种情况中任何一种情况的数量）的差异。两种 HUS 均比 EQ-VAS 评分更敏感，且二者均不优于另一个。
EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6Dv2 的 HUS 在我国高校教职工和学生人群中均具有可接受的测量性能（趋同效度、已知组效度、敏感性）。然而，仅有 EQ-5D-5L（PD 和 AD）和 SF-6Dv2（PN 和 MH）表现出预期的良好趋同效度。两种类型的 HUS 不能互换使用，且在敏感性方面各有优势。
