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

• Published in: Quality of life research 2014-10, Vol.23 (8), p.2375-2381
• Main Authors: Clemens, Susan, Begum, Nelufa, Harper, Catherine, Whitty, Jennifer A., Scuffham, Paul A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Adolescent; Adult; Age; Age groups; Anxiety; Assessed values; Body mass index; Brief Communication; Cross-Sectional Studies; Demographics; Depressive disorders; Economic value; Epidemiology; Female; Gender; Health; Health Status; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Pain; Population; Population characteristics; Population estimates; Psychometrics - methods; Psychometrics - standards; Public Health; Quality of life; Quality of Life - psychology; Quality of Life Research; Queensland - epidemiology; Reference Values; Sociodemographics; Socioeconomics; Sociology; Surveys and Questionnaires; United Kingdom - epidemiology; United States - epidemiology; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0962-9343; 1573-2649
• DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x

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.