Abstract
AbstractRecently, well-being of older people measure (WOOP) was developed and validated in a Dutch population. Although WOOP was developed targeting the older people, it has the potential for use in a wider population. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between WOOP and EQ-5D-5L and compared their psychometric properties in a sample of patients, carers and healthy general public covering a wider age group. We conducted a cross-sectional study in Guizhou Province, China between July and August 2022. Data was collected using paper and pencil. We analysed and reported the acceptability, item response distribution, the Spearman correlation coefficients of all items, the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of all items, the known-group validity and the convergent validity of EQ-5D-5L utility and WOOP utility. A total of 322 participants completed the survey with 105 patients, 101 carers and 116 healthy general public. 9% of participants had at least one missing response. Three items of WOOP did not have any level 5 responses and EQ-5D-5L had more level 1 responses. The correlations were low between EQ-5D-5L and WOOP items and the three-factor EFA showed these two instruments had only one shared factor and the other two factors were only related to WOOP items. Younger people had lower missing response rate and a different response distribution for three items. WOOP measures a broader construct beyond health while EQ-5D-5L is a more sensitive instrument when health is considered alone. There is a potential of using WOOP in a wider population.
Funder
Guizhou Medical University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference32 articles.
1. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L. & Torrance, G. W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (Oxford University Press, 2015).
2. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference?. Pharmacoeconomics 34(7), 645–649 (2016).
3. Whitehead, S. J. & Ali, S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 96, 5–21 (2010).
4. Kennedy-Martin, M. et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 21(8), 1245–1257 (2020).
5. Devlin, N. J. & Brooks, R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 15(2), 127–137 (2017).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献