ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Psychometric performance of the experimental EQ-HWB-9 and EQ-5D-5L in the general Chinese population.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the experimental version of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) nine instrument (EQ-HWB-9) (2022) version and to compare its measurement performance with that of the EQ-5D-5L in the general Chinese population.
methodsData were collected through a national online survey with a representative sample of the general population across different geographical regions in China (N = 1037). The survey included the EQ-HWB-9, the EQ-5D-5L, and sociodemographic information, etc. The level sum score (LSS) was analyzed as the primary outcome for comparisons between the EQ-HWB-9 and EQ-5D-5L, whereas index scores were secondary given EQ-HWB-9 used the UK pilot value set while the EQ-5D-5L used the China's. Analyses included Bland-Altman agreement, response distribution, Spearman correlations for convergent validity, and known-group validity using effect sizes and sensitivity using relative efficiency (RE).
resultsThe Bland‒Altman plot indicated good agreement between the LSS of the instruments. The ceiling effect for the EQ-HWB-9 (6.0%) was much lower than that for the EQ-5D-5L (31.2%), and no floor effect was observed. Moderate to strong correlations were shown for most overlapping items of the EQ-HWB-9 and EQ-5D-5L. In the comparison of known-group validity, both instruments demonstrated comparable performance in distinguishing between groups in terms of sex, age, health status, and disease status. For the overall health-related known groups, the EQ-HWB-9 seems to be more sensitive than the EQ-5D-5L in identifying differences.
conclusionThe EQ-HWB-9 shows good psychometric performance in the general Chinese population. Compared with the EQ-5D-5L, its reduced ceiling effect and comparable known-group validity support the potential application as a complementary instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249192What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.