PurposeThis article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure.MethodsEQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument’s sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions.ResultsSelecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording ‘slight-moderate-severe’ problems, with anchors of ‘no problems’ and ‘unable to do’ in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states.ConclusionsA 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the 5-level classification system of the EQ-5D (5L), in comparison with the 3-level EQ-5D (3L).MethodsParticipants (n = 3,919) from six countries, including eight patient groups with chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, depression, diabetes, liver disease, personality disorders, arthritis, and stroke) and a student cohort, completed the 3L and 5L and, for most participants, also dimension-specific rating scales. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of feasibility (missing values), redistribution properties, ceiling, discriminatory power, convergent validity, and known-groups validity.ResultsMissing values were on average 0.8 % for 5L and 1.3 % for 3L. In total, 2.9 % of responses were inconsistent between 5L and 3L. Redistribution from 3L to 5L using EQ dimension-specific rating scales as reference was validated for all 35 3L–5L-level combinations. For 5L, 683 unique health states were observed versus 124 for 3L. The ceiling was reduced from 20.2 % (3L) to 16.0 % (5L). Absolute discriminatory power (Shannon index) improved considerably with 5L (mean 1.87 for 5L versus 1.24 for 3L), and relative discriminatory power (Shannon Evenness index) improved slightly (mean 0.81 for 5L versus 0.78 for 3L). Convergent validity with WHO-5 was demonstrated and improved slightly with 5L. Known-groups validity was confirmed for both 5L and 3L.ConclusionsThe EQ-5D-5L appears to be a valid extension of the 3-level system which improves upon the measurement properties, reducing the ceiling while improving discriminatory power and establishing convergent and known-groups validity.

Objective: To measure the health of a representative sample of the population of the United Kingdom by using the EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire. Design: Stratified random sample representative of the general population aged 18 and over and living in the community. Setting: United Kingdom. Subjects: 3395 people resident in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Average values for mobility, self care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression. Results: One in three respondents reported problems with pain or discomfort. There were differences in the perception of health according to the respondent's age, social class, education, housing tenure, economic position, and smoking behaviour. Conclusions:The EQ-5D questionnaire is a practical way of measuring the health of a population and of detecting differences in subgroups of the population.

An important consideration when establishing priorities in health care is the likely effects that alternative allocations of resources will have on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). This paper reports on a large-scale national study that elicited the relative valuations attached by the general public to different states of health (defined in HRQoL terms). Health state valuations were derived using the time trade-off (TTO) method. The data from 3395 respondents were highly consistent, suggesting that it is feasible to use the TTO method to elicit valuations from the general public. The paper shows that valuations for severe health states appear to be affected by the age and the sex of the respondent; those aged 18-59 have higher valuations than those aged 60 or over and men have higher valuations than women. These results contradict those reported elsewhere and suggest that the small samples used in other studies may be concealing real differences that exist between population sub-groups. This has important implications for public policy decisions.

Background: In a European trial in 8 countries, the subjective well-being of patients on alternative forms of treatment for insulin-dependent diabetes was compared using the 28-item WHO Well-Being Questionnaire, covering four dimensions of depression, anxiety, energy and positive well-being. The objective of the analysis reported here has been to identify the items of the WHO questionnaire which belong to an overall index of negative and positive well-being. Methods: Adult patients at 10 study centres in 8 countries who had been on insulin for at least 2 years were invited to participate in a randomised, cross-over trial to compare insulin pump treatment with injection therapy. At each phase, patients completed questions on well-being and general health. Internal validity of the well-being index was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha and Loevinger’s and Mokken’s homogeneity coefficients, as well as factor analysis. External validity was evaluated by comparisons with results of the general assessment questions and by the ability to discriminate between the alternative forms of treatment. Results: 358 patients had sufficient data for analysis. Ten items were found to constitute a valid index of well-being with respect to internal and external validity. Coefficients of homogeneity were acceptable and there was evidence for both concurrent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: The WHO (Ten) well-being index includes negative and positive aspects of well-being in a single uni-dimensional scale. Its advantage lies in its ability to show overall change along the continuum of well-being, thus facilitating comparisons between patient groups and treatments. It is not specific to diabetes, and therefore may be useful as a disease-independent index of well-being in a broad range of health care studies.