ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Are the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-9 valid instruments for measuring informal carer outcomes for use in economic evaluations?
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite growing interest in incorporating informal carer outcomes into economic evaluations, evidence on the performance of utility measures for informal carers remains limited. This study assesses the psychometric performance of the EQ‑5D‑5L and EQ‑HWB‑9 in capturing informal carer outcomes for economic evaluations.
methodsThis study utilized cross-sectional EQ-DAPHNIE survey data from English‑speaking countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and US) to evaluate the EQ‑HWB‑9 (UK pilot value set) and EQ‑5D‑5L (country‑specific value sets), assessing distributional (i.e., acceptability, distribution, floor and ceiling effects) and construct validity (i.e., convergent and known-group) properties, with subgroup analyses by age and financial situation.
resultsThere were 6,743 informal carers across Australia (n = 1447), Canada (n = 1265), New Zealand (n = 1435), UK (n = 1337), and US (n = 1259). The EQ-5D-5L showed a ceiling effect (19%), but not the EQ-HWB-9 (5%). Most respondents reported problems (level 2-5) on the EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort (67%) and anxiety/depression (60%), with anxiety/depression showing the highest proportion with worst (level 5) responses (5%). For the EQ-HWB-9, ≥ 50% reported problems (level 2-5) across all domains except mobility, with ≥ 5% reporting the worst (level 5) responses in exhaustion, loneliness, cognition, sad/depressed, anxious, and control. Both instruments moderately correlated with the WHO-5, PROMIS-10 (physical and mental t-scores), ASCOT-SCT4, OPQOL-brief, PHQ-2, and GAD-2, and demonstrated known-group validity across groups relating to self-reported physical and mental disability, chronic conditions, sleep, social support, impact of caring, psychological wellbeing, and self-reported quality-of-life. Results were consistent in subgroup analyses.
conclusionThis study provides evidence supporting the acceptability and construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-9 in measuring informal carer outcomes for use in economic evaluations. Responsiveness evidence remains limited and warrants further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42879005What 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.