Transitioning between the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems in a group of adolescents

To investigate whether the same health state results in the same distribution of responses on the EQ-5D youth and adult descriptive systems.

Adolescents aged 13-18 years with a range of health conditions and from the general school going population were recruited in South Africa (ZA) and Ethiopia (ET). In ZA participants completed the English EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L in parallel. Whereas in ET participants completed the Amharic EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in parallel. Analysis aimed to describe the transition between youth and adult instruments and not differences between countries.

Data from 592 adolescents completing the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-5L (ZA) and 693 completing the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (ET) were analysed. Adolescents reported more problems on the youth versions compared to the adult version for the dimension of mental health. 13% and 4% of adolescents who reported no problems on the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L reported some problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L respectively. This was less notable with transition between the five level versions with 4% of adolescents reporting more problems on the EQ-5D-Y-5L than the EQ-5D-5L. Very few adolescents reported severe problems (level 3 on the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-Y-3L and level 4 and level 5 on the EQ-5D-5L or EQ-5D-5L) thus there was little variation between responses between the versions. In ZA, discriminatory power, measured on the Shannon's Index, was higher for Y-3L compared to 3L for pain/discomfort (ΔH'=0.11) and anxiety/depression (ΔH'=0.04) and across all dimensions for Y-3L compared to 5L. Similarly, in ET discriminatory power was higher for Y-5L than 5L (ΔH' range 0.05-0.09). Gwet's AC showed good to very good agreement across all paired (ZA) 3L and (ET) 5L dimensions. The summary score of all EQ-5D versions were able to differentiate between known disease groups.

Despite the overall high levels of agreement between EQ-5D instruments for youth and for adults, they do not provide identical results in terms of health state, from the same respondent. The differences were most notable for anxiety/depression. These differences in the way individuals respond to the various descriptive systems need to be taken into consideration for descriptive analysis, when transitioning between instruments, and when comparing preference-weighted scores.