Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238604›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024

Psychometric Performance Comparison of the Adapted versus Original Versions of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and -Y-5L in Proxy Respondents for 2- to 4-Year-Olds.

Alexander van Heusden, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Michael Herdman, Harriet Hiscock, Nancy Devlin, Kim Dalziel, Quality Of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia (QUOKKA) Project Team

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Valuing health states for infants and toddlers: challenges and methodological considerations in EQ-TIPS preference elicitation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. An Australian Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander van HeusdenHealth Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. alex.vanheusden@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8055-5450
Oliver Rivero-AriasNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2233-6544
Michael HerdmanOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-5357
Harriet HiscockHealth Services Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3017-2770
Nancy DevlinHealth Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-5361
Kim DalzielHealth Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4972-8871
Quality Of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia (QUOKKA) Project Team
The University of Melbourne · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUOffice Of Health Economics · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 2020RANational Health and Medical Research Council 1136222National Health and Medical Research Council 1200816
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew preference-weighted instruments are available to measure health-related quality of life in young children (2-4 years of age). The EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L were recently modified for this purpose.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of these adapted versions for use with parent proxies of children aged 2-4 years and to compare their performance with the original versions. It was hypothesised that the adapted instrument wording would result in improved psychometric performance.

methodsSurvey data of children aged 2-4 years were obtained from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Distributional and psychometric properties tested included feasibility, convergence, distribution of level scores, ceiling effects, known-group validity (Cohen's D effect sizes for prespecified groups defined by the presence/absence of special healthcare needs [SHCNs]), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]), and responsiveness (standardised response mean [SRM] effect sizes for changes in health). Level sum scores were used to provide summary outcomes. Supplementary analysis using utility scores (from the Swedish EQ-5D-Y-3L value set) were conducted for the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L, and no value sets were available for the EQ-5D-Y-5L.

resultsA total of 842 parents of children aged 2-4 years completed the survey. All instruments were easy to complete. There was strong convergence between the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. The adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L showed more responses in the severe levels of the five EQ-5D-Y dimensions, particularly in the usual activity and mobility dimensions (EQ-5D-Y-5L: mobility level 1: adapted n = 478 [83%], original n = 253 [94%]; mobility level 4/5: adapted n = 17 [2.9%], original n = 4 [1.5%)]). The difference in the distribution of responses was more evident in children with SHCNs. Assessment of known-group validity showed a greater effect size for the adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L compared with the original instruments (EQ-5D-Y-5L: adapted Cohen's D = 1.01, original Cohen's D = 0.83) between children with and without SHCNs. The adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L showed improved reliability at 4-week follow-up, with improved ICCs (EQ-5D-Y-5L: adapted ICC = 0.83, original ICC = 0.44). The responsiveness of all instruments moved in the hypothesised direction for better or worse health at follow-up. Probability of superiority analysis showed little/no differences between the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. Supplementary psychometric analysis of the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L using utilities showed comparable findings with analyses using level sum scores.

conclusionsThe findings suggest improved psychometric performance of the adapted version of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in children aged 2-4 years compared with the original versions.

Indexed as

ProxyPsychometricsQuality of LifeAustraliaChild, PreschoolFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleParentsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38238604
PMCPMC11169041
OpenAlexW4390971332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.