Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: We investigated whether the sensitivity of the generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) EQ-5D summary measure (or index) to detect changes over time in a clinical setting is comparable with that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire. Methods: Patients with liver metastases (n = 75) filled out the five domains of the EQ-5D self-classifier, the EQ VAS, and the EORTC QLQ C-30 (a disease-specific (cancer) HRQoL questionnaire). The HRQoL instruments were completed before intervention, and 1/2 month and 3 and 6 months after intervention. Three analyses were performed. First, the EQ-5D index (based on self-classification) was compared to the EQ VAS. Second, the EQ-5D domains were compared to corresponding EORTC QLQ C-30 scales. Third, EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were compared with the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Effect size was chosen as the metric of responsiveness. Results: The EQ-5D index was slightly less responsive than the EQ VAS. Overall, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D index and EQ VAS was equal to the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Conclusion: Despite its generic principle and the apparent crudeness of its framework, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D proved to be comparable to that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire in this specific clinical setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 169–180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman, M. Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 311–322.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agt van HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ. Testretest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 1537–1544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36: 551–559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kerlinger FN. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: CBS College Publishing, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aiken LR. Note on sensitivity: A neglected psychometric concept. Percep Motor Skills 1977; 45: 1330.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Norman GR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 1097–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: An aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 73–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 1998; 316: 690–693.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1204–1217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University press, 1995/2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stockler MR, Osoba D, Goodwin P, Corey P, Tannock IF. Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: A comparison of the prostate cancer specific quality of life instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ C-30 and a trial specific module. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 137–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific qualityof-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 52–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Med Care 1997; 35: 522–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brooks R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sprangers MA, Te VA. The construction and testing of the EORTC QLQ C-30 colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 238–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582–592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N, Gleser GC. Theory of generalizability: A liberation of reliability theory. Brit J Stat Psych 1963; 16: 132–163.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Muraweski MM, Miederhoff PA. On the generalizability of statistical expressions of health related quality of life instrument responsiveness: A data synthesis. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 11–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Technology Assessment, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Paul F.M. Krabbe & Lonneke Peerenboom

  2. Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Barbara S. Langenhoff & Theo J.M. Ruers

Authors
  1. Paul F.M. Krabbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lonneke Peerenboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara S. Langenhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theo J.M. Ruers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krabbe, P.F., Peerenboom, L., Langenhoff, B.S. et al. Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res 13, 1247–1253 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037498.00754.b8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037498.00754.b8

Search

Navigation