Cate Bailey, Kim Dalziel, Leanne Constable, Nancy J. Devlin, Harriet Hiscock, Helen Skouteris, Tessa Peasgood
{"title":"The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events","authors":"Cate Bailey, Kim Dalziel, Leanne Constable, Nancy J. Devlin, Harriet Hiscock, Helen Skouteris, Tessa Peasgood","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01688-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0–8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021–2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test–retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The sample included 234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for ‘Mobility’. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test–retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01688-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events.
Methods
Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0–8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021–2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test–retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity.
Results
The sample included 234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for ‘Mobility’. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test–retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs.
Conclusion
The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.