Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing Measure: Psychometric Survey Results for the EQ-HWB.

EQ-HWB health and wellbeing item response theory item selection measurement development psychometrics quality-adjusted life-year

Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2022
Historique:
received: 15 07 2021
revised: 29 10 2021
accepted: 04 11 2021
entrez: 2 4 2022
pubmed: 3 4 2022
medline: 6 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The development of measures such as the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing) requires selection of items. This study explored the psychometric performance of candidate items, testing their validity in patients, social carer users, and carers. Article and online surveys that included candidate items (N = 64) were conducted in Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States. Psychometric assessment on missing data, response distributions, and known group differences was undertaken. Dimensionality was explored using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Poorly fitting items were identified using information functions, and the function of each response category was assessed using category characteristic curves from item response theory (IRT) models. Differential item functioning was tested across key subgroups. There were 4879 respondents (Argentina = 508, Australia = 514, China = 497, Germany = 502, United Kingdom = 1955, United States = 903). Where missing data were allowed, it was low (UK article survey 2.3%; US survey 0.6%). Most items had responses distributed across all levels. Most items could discriminate between groups with known health conditions with moderate to large effect sizes. Items were less able to discriminate across carers. Factor analysis found positive and negative measurement factors alongside the constructs of interest. For most of the countries apart from China, the confirmatory factor analysis model had good fit with some minor modifications. IRT indicated that most items had well-functioning response categories but there was some evidence of differential item functioning in many items. Items performed well in classical psychometric testing and IRT. This large 6-country collaboration provided evidence to inform item selection for the EQ-HWB measure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35365299
pii: S1098-3015(21)03192-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1361
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

525-533

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : 170620
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Tessa Peasgood (T)

Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK. Electronic address: Tessa.Peasgood@unimelb.edu.au.

Clara Mukuria (C)

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.

John Brazier (J)

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.

Ole Marten (O)

Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Simone Kreimeier (S)

Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Nan Luo (N)

Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Brendan Mulhern (B)

Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Wolfgang Greiner (W)

Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

A Simon Pickard (AS)

Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Federico Augustovski (F)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Lidia Engel (L)

Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Luz Gibbons (L)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Zhihao Yang (Z)

Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.

Andrea L Monteiro (AL)

Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Maja Kuharic (M)

Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Maria Belizan (M)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Jakob Bjørner (J)

QualityMetric Incorporated, LLC, Johnston, RI, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH