Transitioning between the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems in a group of adolescents.

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00770-4
Janine Verstraete, Paul Kind, Mathieu F Janssen, Zhihao Yang, Elly Stolk, Abraham Gebregziabiher
{"title":"Transitioning between the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems in a group of adolescents.","authors":"Janine Verstraete, Paul Kind, Mathieu F Janssen, Zhihao Yang, Elly Stolk, Abraham Gebregziabiher","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00770-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether the same health state results in the same distribution of responses on the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adolescents aged 13-18 years with a range of health conditions and from the general school going population were recruited in South Africa (ZA) and Ethiopia (ET). In ZA participants completed the English EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L in parallel. Whereas in ET participants completed the Amharic EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in parallel. Analysis aimed to describe the transition between youth and adult instruments and not differences between countries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 592 adolescents completing the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L (ZA) and 693 completing the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (ET) were analysed. Adolescents reported more problems on the youth versions compared to the adult version for the dimension of mental health. 13% and 4% of adolescents who reported no problems on the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L reported some problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L respectively. This was less notable with transition between the five level versions with 4% of adolescents reporting more problems on the EQ-5D-Y-5L than the EQ-5D-5L. Very few adolescents reported severe problems (level 3 on the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y-3L and level 4 and level 5 on the EQ-5D-5L or EQ-5D-5L) thus there was little variation between responses between the versions. In ZA, discriminatory power, measured on the Shannon's Index, was higher for Y-3L compared to 3L for pain/discomfort (ΔH'=0.11) and anxiety/depression (ΔH'=0.04) and across all dimensions for Y-3L compared to 5L. Similarly, in ET discriminatory power was higher for Y-5L than 5L (ΔH' range 0.05-0.09). Gwet's AC showed good to very good agreement across all paired (ZA) 3L and (ET) 5L dimensions. The summary score of all EQ-5D versions were able to differentiate between known disease groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the overall high levels of agreement between EQ-5D instruments for youth and for adults, they do not provide identical results in terms of health state, from the same respondent. The differences were most notable for anxiety/depression. These differences in the way individuals respond to the various descriptive systems need to be taken into consideration for descriptive analysis, when transitioning between instruments, and when comparing preference-weighted scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00770-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether the same health state results in the same distribution of responses on the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems.

Methods: Adolescents aged 13-18 years with a range of health conditions and from the general school going population were recruited in South Africa (ZA) and Ethiopia (ET). In ZA participants completed the English EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L in parallel. Whereas in ET participants completed the Amharic EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in parallel. Analysis aimed to describe the transition between youth and adult instruments and not differences between countries.

Results: Data from 592 adolescents completing the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L (ZA) and 693 completing the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (ET) were analysed. Adolescents reported more problems on the youth versions compared to the adult version for the dimension of mental health. 13% and 4% of adolescents who reported no problems on the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L reported some problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L respectively. This was less notable with transition between the five level versions with 4% of adolescents reporting more problems on the EQ-5D-Y-5L than the EQ-5D-5L. Very few adolescents reported severe problems (level 3 on the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y-3L and level 4 and level 5 on the EQ-5D-5L or EQ-5D-5L) thus there was little variation between responses between the versions. In ZA, discriminatory power, measured on the Shannon's Index, was higher for Y-3L compared to 3L for pain/discomfort (ΔH'=0.11) and anxiety/depression (ΔH'=0.04) and across all dimensions for Y-3L compared to 5L. Similarly, in ET discriminatory power was higher for Y-5L than 5L (ΔH' range 0.05-0.09). Gwet's AC showed good to very good agreement across all paired (ZA) 3L and (ET) 5L dimensions. The summary score of all EQ-5D versions were able to differentiate between known disease groups.

Conclusion: Despite the overall high levels of agreement between EQ-5D instruments for youth and for adults, they do not provide identical results in terms of health state, from the same respondent. The differences were most notable for anxiety/depression. These differences in the way individuals respond to the various descriptive systems need to be taken into consideration for descriptive analysis, when transitioning between instruments, and when comparing preference-weighted scores.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一组青少年在 EQ-5D 青少年和成人描述系统之间的转换。
目的:调查相同的健康状况是否会导致 EQ-5D 青少年和成人描述系统中相同的反应分布:方法: 在南非(ZA)和埃塞俄比亚(ET)招募了 13-18 岁的青少年,他们患有各种健康问题,来自普通学校的学生。在南非,参与者同时完成了英语 EQ-5D-3L、EQ-5D-Y-3L 和 EQ-5D-5L。而在埃塞俄比亚,参与者同时完成了阿姆哈拉语 EQ-5D-5L 和 EQ-5D-Y-5L 测试。分析的目的是描述青少年和成人工具之间的过渡,而不是国家之间的差异:结果:分析了 592 名完成 EQ-5D-3L、EQ-5D-Y-3L 和 EQ-5D-5L (ZA)的青少年和 693 名完成 EQ-5D-5L 和 EQ-5D-Y-5L (ET)的青少年的数据。与成人版相比,青少年版报告的心理健康问题更多。在 EQ-5D-3L 和 EQ-5D-5L 中没有问题的青少年中,分别有 13% 和 4% 在 EQ-5D-Y-3L 中报告了一些问题。这种情况在五级版本之间的转换中不那么明显,4%的青少年在EQ-5D-Y-5L中报告的问题多于EQ-5D-5L。只有极少数青少年报告了严重问题(EQ-5D-3L 或 EQ-5D-Y-3L 中的第 3 级,EQ-5D-5L 或 EQ-5D-5L 中的第 4 级和第 5 级),因此不同版本之间的反应差异很小。在 ZA 中,以香农指数衡量,Y-3L 在疼痛/不适(ΔH'=0.11)和焦虑/抑郁(ΔH'=0.04)方面的辨别力高于 3L,Y-3L 在所有维度上的辨别力高于 5L。同样,在 ET 中,Y-5L 的辨别力高于 5L(ΔH'范围为 0.05-0.09)。Gwet's AC 在所有配对的 (ZA) 3L 和 (ET) 5L 维度上都显示出良好到非常好的一致性。所有 EQ-5D 版本的总分都能区分已知的疾病组别:结论:尽管青少年和成年人的 EQ-5D 工具总体上具有较高的一致性,但就健康状况而言,它们从同一受访者那里得到的结果并不完全相同。焦虑/抑郁方面的差异最为明显。在进行描述性分析、工具间转换和比较偏好加权分数时,需要考虑到个人对各种描述性系统的反应方式的这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Australian private healthcare staff perspectives on patient reported experience measures (PREMs): a qualitative interview study. Coping difficulties after inpatient hospital treatment: validity and reliability of the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale. Machine learning models including patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a systematic literature review and analysis of their reporting quality. Tests employed in the psychometric validation of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) in T2DM patients; a systematic review of the literature. Associations between symptom-based long COVID clusters and long-term quality of life, work and daily activities among individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at a national retail pharmacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1