Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39907985›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025

EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S: Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?

Wenjing Zhou, Bo Ding, Jan Busschbach, Michael Herdman, Zhihao Yang, Yanming Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Validation of EQ-HWB-9 among Chinese college students based on a nationwide survey.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EQ Health and Wellbeing EQ-HWB: A Psychometric Assessment Across 6 Conditions and the General Population in the United Kingdom.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wenjing Zhou *Department of Paediatrics, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 2000, Jiangyue Road, Shanghai, China.
Bo Ding *Department of Paediatrics, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 2000, Jiangyue Road, Shanghai, China.
Jan BusschbachDepartment of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael HerdmanSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Zhihao Yang *Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Room 316, Shansi Building, Guian, Guizhou Province, China. zhihao_yang_cn@126.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5468-0847
Yanming Lu *Department of Paediatrics, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 2000, Jiangyue Road, Shanghai, China. luyanming@renji.com.

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation EQ Project 1654-TVG
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectives'Caregiver health spillovers' refer to the broader impacts of an individual's illness and interventions on informal caregivers' health and well-being. This study focuses on the spillover effects experienced by parental carers of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aiming to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version (EQ-HWB-S) in capturing these effects.

methodsA longitudinal study was conducted with 861 parental carers of children aged 0-18 years with COVID-19 and 231 parents of healthy children as the control group. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S were used to assess parental health and well-being. Analyses included known-groups validity (multivariable regression), test-retest reliability (Gwet's AC1, intraclass correlation coefficient) and responsiveness to health improvement (Glass' Δ effect size).

resultsParents of infected children reported more problems than those of healthy controls. The EQ-HWB-S better discriminated between sub-groups defined by the child's COVID-19 presence, caring time and work impact. Test-retest reliability was fair to good for EQ-HWB-S dimensions (Gwet's AC1: 0.33-0.79), moderate to good for EQ-5D-5L (Gwet's AC1: 0.40-0.76), and good for index scores and EQ VAS (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70-0.77). Parental health and well-being improved as children recovered, with the EQ-5D-5L showing slightly higher responsiveness (effect size: 0.77-0.87) than EQ-HWB-S (effect size: 0.62-0.74).

conclusionsBoth EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L are valid, reliable and responsive for measuring parental spillover effects related to a child's COVID-19 infection. EQ-HWB-S outperformed in distinguishing social and emotional impacts of caregiving, while EQ-5D-5L better captured physical health improvements. The choice between tools may depend on study objectives.

Indexed as

CaregiversCOVID-19ParentsAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHealth StatusHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID39907985
PMCPMC12011911

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.