A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA.
Authors:	Clemens, Susan, Begum, Nelufa, Harper, Catherine, Whitty, Jennifer, Scuffham, Paul
Source:	Quality of Life Research. Oct2014, Vol. 23 Issue 8, p2375-2381. 7p.
Subjects:	Quality of life, Comparative studies, Health impact assessment, Computer assisted research, Telephone interviewing, Health self-care
Geographic Terms:	Queensland
Abstract:	Purpose: To provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3L by age and gender based on a representative adult sample in Queensland, Australia; to assess differences in health-related quality of life by applying the Australian, UK and USA value sets to these data; and to assess differences in utility scores for key preventive health indicators. Methods: A cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interview survey (March-June 2011) with 5,555 adults. Respondents rated their impairment (none, moderate, severe problems) across five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety or depression) using the validated EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life instrument. Utility score indexes were derived using the Australian, UK and USA value sets. Results: Forty per cent of adults reported pain and discomfort while 3 % indicated problems with self-care. Approximately one in six had limitations with mobility, usual activities or anxiety or depression. The three value sets performed similarly in discriminating differences based on most characteristics, and clinically meaningful differences were seen for age, body weight, physical activity and daily smoking. There were no differences in utility scores for gender. Conclusions: This is the first study to report general population findings for the Australian EQ-5D-3L value set. Overall, the Australian value set performed comparably with other value sets commonly used in the Australian population; however, differences were observed. Results will enable further refinement to health and economic studies in an Australian-specific context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: To provide population norms for the EQ-5D-3L by age and gender based on a representative adult sample in Queensland, Australia; to assess differences in health-related quality of life by applying the Australian, UK and USA value sets to these data; and to assess differences in utility scores for key preventive health indicators. Methods: A cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interview survey (March-June 2011) with 5,555 adults. Respondents rated their impairment (none, moderate, severe problems) across five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety or depression) using the validated EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life instrument. Utility score indexes were derived using the Australian, UK and USA value sets. Results: Forty per cent of adults reported pain and discomfort while 3 % indicated problems with self-care. Approximately one in six had limitations with mobility, usual activities or anxiety or depression. The three value sets performed similarly in discriminating differences based on most characteristics, and clinically meaningful differences were seen for age, body weight, physical activity and daily smoking. There were no differences in utility scores for gender. Conclusions: This is the first study to report general population findings for the Australian EQ-5D-3L value set. Overall, the Australian value set performed comparably with other value sets commonly used in the Australian population; however, differences were observed. Results will enable further refinement to health and economic studies in an Australian-specific context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	09629343
DOI:	10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x