Content validity of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S in a sample of Italian patients, informal caregivers and members of the general public.
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Mar 2024
23 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
30
08
2023
accepted:
23
02
2024
medline:
23
3
2024
pubmed:
23
3
2024
entrez:
23
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts. Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate. The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers.
METHODS
METHODS
Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38519577
doi: 10.1186/s41687-024-00706-y
pii: 10.1186/s41687-024-00706-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Karimi M, Brazier J (2016) Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? PharmacoEconomics 7(34):645–649
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
Brazier J, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H (2017) A review of generic preference-based mesures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart G, Torrance G (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20:1727–1736
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
pubmed: 21479777
pmcid: 3220807
Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B (2018) Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 27(1):7–22
doi: 10.1002/hec.3564
pubmed: 28833869
Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1)
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, Depauw S, Denton M, Boyle M (2002) Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 40(2):113–128
doi: 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006
pubmed: 11802084
Kaplan RM, Anderson JP (1988) A general health policy model: update and application. Health Serv Res 203–235
Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, Khan M (2014) Modelling utility weights for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res 23(8):2395–2404
doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8
pubmed: 24719017
Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C (2017) What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. Eur J Health Econ 19(4):557–570
doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x
pubmed: 28560520
pmcid: 5913394
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A-M (2012) Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess 16(16):1–166
doi: 10.3310/hta16160
pubmed: 22459668
Brazier JE, Rowen D, Lloyd A, Karimi M (2019) Future directions in valuing benefits for estimating QALYs: is time up for the EQ-5D? Value Health 22(1):62–68
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.001
pubmed: 30661635
Zarit S, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J (1980) Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist 20(6):649–655
doi: 10.1093/geront/20.6.649
pubmed: 7203086
George L, Gwyther LP (1986) Caregiver weil-being: a multidimensional examination of family caregivers of demented adults. Gerontologist 26(3):253–259
doi: 10.1093/geront/26.3.253
pubmed: 3721232
Brazier J, Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Marten O, Kreimeier S, Luo N, Mulhern B, Pickard S, Augustovski F, Greiner W, Engel L, Belizan M, Yang Z, Monteiro A, Kuharic M, Carlton J (2022) The EQ health and wellbeing: overview of the development of a measure. Value Health
Carlton J, Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Connell J, Brazier J, Ludwig K, Marten O, Kreimeier S, Engel L, Belizán M, Yang Z, Monteiro A, Kuharic M, Luo N, Mulhern B, Greiner W (2022) Generation, selection, and face validation of items for a new generic measure of quality of life: the EQ health and wellbeing. Value Helath 25(4):512–524
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.12.007
COSMIN Group (2022) Cosmin taxonomy of measurement properties. [Online]. Available: https://www.cosmin.nl/ . Accessed 17 July 2022
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63(7):737–745
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
pubmed: 20494804
Rabin RGCSCHM (2014) From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the euroqol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health 70–76
Terwee C, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, de Vet H, Bouter L, Alonso J, Westerman M, Patrick D, Mokkin L (2018) COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs-user manual. VU University Medical Center
Coast J (1999) The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Econ 8(4):345–353
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.0.CO;2-Q
pubmed: 10398527
Finch AP, Meregaglia M, Ciani O, Roudijk B, Jommi C (2022) An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration. Soc Sci Med 292
Spencer L, Ritchie J, OConnor W (2003) Analysis: practices, principles and processes. In: Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. 199–2018
Penton H, Dayson C, Hulme C, Young T (2022) A qualitative investigation of older adults, conceptualization of quality of life and a think-aloud content validation of the EQ-5D-5L, SF-12v2, Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale, and office national Statistics-4. Value Health 25(12):2017–2027
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.04.1735
pubmed: 35760713
Mukuria C, Connell J, Carlton J, Peasgood T, Scope A, Clowes M (2022) Qualitative review on domains of quality of life important for patients, social care users, and informal carers to inform the development of the EQ health and wellbeing. Value Health 25(4):492–511
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1371
pubmed: 35365298
Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Brazier J, Marten O, Kreimeier S, Luo N, Mulhern B, Greiner W, Pickard S, Augustovski F, Engel L, Gibbons L, Yan Z, Monteiro A, Kuharic M, Belizan M (2021) Developing a new generic health and wellbeing measure: psychometric survey results for the EQ health and wellbeing. Value Health 25(4):525–533
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1361
Mukuria C, Peasgood T, Brazier J (2021) Applying EuroQol portable valuation technology to the EQ health and wellbeing short (EQHWB-S): a pilot study. In: ScHARR HEDS discussion papers
Augustovski F, Argento F, Rodriguez R, Gibbons L, Mukuria C, Belizan M (2022) The development of a new international generic measure (EQ-HWB): face validity and psychometric stages in Argentina. Value Health 25(4):544–557
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.12.010
pubmed: 35148961
Brazier J, Tsuchiya A (2015) Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 13(6):557–565
doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0194-1
Carlton J, Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Johnson J, Ogden M, Tovey W (2022) The role of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development of the EQ health and wellbeing (EQ-HWB). J Patient-reported Outcomes 6(1):35
doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00437-y
Norman R, JA O (2022) Expanding the scope of value for economic evaluation: the EQ-HWB. Value Health 25(4):480–481
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.02.001
pubmed: 35256244
Monteiro A, Kuharic M, Pickard A (2022) A comparison of a preliminary version of the EQ-HWB short and the 5-level version EQ-5D. Value Health 25(4):534–543
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.003
pubmed: 35279371
Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Carlton J, Connell J, Devlin N, Jones K (2021) What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB? Eur J Health Econ 22(7):1067–1081
doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01306-z
pubmed: 33909157
pmcid: 8318935
WHO WHO constitution. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution . 29 August 2022
Matranga D, Maniscalco L (2022) Inequality in healthcare utilization in Italy: how important are barriers to access? Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(1697):5736
Keeley T, Al-Janabi H, Lorgelly P, Coast J (2013) A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS One 8(12):e85287
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085287
pubmed: 24367708
pmcid: 3868594
Engel L, Bucholc J, C M, Mulhern B, Ratcliffe J, Yates M (2020) A qualitative exploration of the content and face validity of preference-based measures within the context of dementia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18(1):178
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01425-w
pubmed: 32527264
pmcid: 7291594
Gibson A, Longworth L, Bennett B, Pickard A, Shaw J (2024) Assessing the content validity of preference-based measures in cancer. Value Health 27(1):70–78
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.006
pubmed: 37879402
Engel L, Kosowicz L, Bogatyreva E, Devlin BFN, Dow B, Gilbert A, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Viney R (2023) Face validity of four preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care: a think-aloud study. Patient-Centered Outcomes Res 16(6):655–666
doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6
Mukuria C, Peasgood T, McDool E, Norman R, Rowen D, Brazier J (2023) Valuing the EQ health and wellbeing short using time trade-off and a discrete choice experiment: a feasibility study. Value Health