Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Patient reported outcome measures, such as the EQ-5D-5L, provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. Understanding the consumer acceptability of a patient reported outcome measure can help to decide about its implementation across a healthcare organisation and possibly increase the likelihood of its use in clinical care. This study established the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L from the perspective of clients receiving healthcare, and determined if acceptability varied by client sub-types.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey explored clients’ experience of the EQ-5D-5L. Eligible clients were aged ≥ 18 years and completed the EQ-5D-5L on admission and discharge to one of two multi-disciplinary community health services. Likert scale items explored acceptability, and open-ended questions determined if the EQ-5D-5L reflects experience of illness. Associations between acceptability and client characteristics were established using χ2 test. Open-ended questions were analysed using content analysis.
Results
Most of the 304 clients (mean age 70 years, SD 16) agreed that the EQ-5D-5L: was easy to use/understand (n = 301, 99%) and useful (n = 289, 95%); improved communication with their therapist (n = 275, 90%); and made them feel more in control of their health (n = 276, 91%). Most clients also agreed that they wished to continue using the EQ-5D-5L (n = 285, 93%). Clients aged ≥ 60 years reported lower acceptability. Clients noted that the EQ-5D-5L did not capture experience of illness related to fatigue, balance/falls, cognition, and sleep.
Conclusion
The EQ-5D-5L is acceptable for use in care but does not capture all aspects of health relevant to clients, and acceptability varies by subgroup.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference68 articles.
1. World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. WHO. Retrieved December 6, 2022, from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/186463
2. Prince, M. J., Wu, F., Guo, Y., Gutierrez Robledo, L. M., O’Donnell, M., Sullivan, R., & Yusuf, S. (2015). The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet, 385(9967), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61347-7
3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (1996). Australia’s health services expenditure 1982–83 to 1994–95. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved September 28, 2023, from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/6bda7cf9-3bbf-4705-9e56-b0213e110461/heb12.pdf?v=20230605175749&inline=true
4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Health expenditure Australia 2019–20. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved September 28, 2023, from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2019-20/contents/summary
5. Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024