↓ Skip to main content

Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John N. Yfantopoulos, Athanasios E. Chantzaras

Abstract

To validate and compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L with the EQ-5D-5L classification systems in Greece. Participants (n = 2279) over 40 years old, sampled from the greater area of Athens using a multistage stratified quota sampling method, completed both EQ-5D versions, while information was also collected on socio-demographics and health-related characteristics. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L were evaluated in terms of agreement, ceiling effects, redistribution and inconsistency, informativity, and convergent and known-groups validity. The agreement between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L was high (ICC = 0.85). Ceiling effects decreased significantly in the EQ-5D-5L in all domains (P < 0.001), with "usual activities" (-21.4 %) and "self-care" (-20.1 %) showing the highest absolute and "anxiety/depression" the highest relative reduction (-32.46 %). Inconsistency was low (5.7 %). The increase in prevalence of problems was larger than the decrease in their severity, resulting in a lower mean health utility for the EQ-5D-5L. Overall absolute and relative informativity improved by 70.5 % and 16.4 %, respectively, in the EQ-5D-5L. Both instruments exhibited good convergent and known-groups validity, with evidence of a considerably better convergent performance and discriminatory ability of the EQ-5D-5L. Both EQ-5D versions demonstrated good construct validity and had consistent redistribution. The EQ-5D-5L system may be preferable to the EQ-5D-3L, as it exhibited superior performance in terms of lower ceiling effects, higher absolute and relative informativity, and improved convergent and known-groups validity efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 25 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,148,094
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#476
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,542
of 354,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.