ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-3L in a general population sample of adults.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEQ-5D has separate three-level versions for children/adolescents (EQ-5D-Y-3L) and adults (EQ-5D-3L), assessing the same five dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using age-appropriate language. Little is known about how differences in wording affect self-reported HRQoL assessments. This study aimed to compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-3L in an adult general population sample.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in a Hungarian adult general population sample representative by age and gender (n = 1,196). Measurement properties, including ceiling, floor, informativity, agreement (Kendall's tau) and known-groups validity (effect sizes) based on self-perceived health and chronic conditions were compared across instruments.
resultsEQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-3L yielded 85 and 47 unique health states, respectively. Identical health profiles were reported by 59.0%. Overall ceiling was lower using the EQ-5D-Y-3L (34.8%) than the EQ-5D-3L (46.8%), with the largest dimension-level difference for EQ-5D-Y-3L worried/sad/unhappy (56.8%) vs. EQ-5D-3L anxiety/depression (71.6%). Relative informativity was higher for all EQ-5D-Y-3L dimensions (0.20-0.75) than EQ-5D-3L (0.18-0.66). Agreement was the weakest for worried/sad/unhappy vs. anxiety/depression (0.636) and the strongest for mobility (0.841). Both instruments showed medium to large effect sizes across known-groups based on level sum scores (EQ-5D-Y-3L: 0.820-2.454; EQ-5D-3L: 0.820-2.696) and index values (EQ-5D-Y-3L: 0.754-2.362; EQ-5D-3L: 0.747-2.365), with EQ-5D-Y-3L showing higher discriminatory power in 62-69% of known groups.
conclusionNotable differences emerged between EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-3L in an adult general population sample, especially in the mental health dimension, suggesting that transitions between these instruments should be treated cautiously. The EQ-5D-Y-3L may offer advantages in detecting variations in mental health, even in adult populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.