Qualitative testing of potential modifications to the EQ-HWB EMV2.1 in adults with mobility problems in the United Kingdom.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Aisha Moolla, Jill Carlton, Tessa Peasgood
{"title":"Qualitative testing of potential modifications to the EQ-HWB EMV2.1 in adults with mobility problems in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Aisha Moolla, Jill Carlton, Tessa Peasgood","doi":"10.1186/s12955-026-02577-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The EQ-Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a generic measure assessing the impact of health, social care, and informal caregiving on quality of life. The 9-item short form, the EQ-HWB-9 v1.1 (experimental, 2022), underwent international validation, with subsequent modifications to item wording, response options, layout, and item order resulting in the EQ-HWB EMV2.1 (experimental modified, 2025). This study aimed to assess the content validity of this version in individuals with mobility problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve adults in the UK with self-reported health conditions and mobility problems participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants described their health experiences, reviewed each EQ-HWB EMV2.1 item, and compared potential further modifications to the 'mobility' item wording and 'cognition' response options. Comprehension, relevance, comprehensiveness and preferences were explored using verbal probing. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis, guided by content validity domains, with double-coding for 25% of transcripts to ensure alignment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (age 35-79 years) reported 35 health conditions. Eight items were understood as intended by all participants. The 'mobility' item presented varied interpretations (home-based limitations, daily activities, or aid use, n = 4), highlighting the need for an illustrative example, though no single wording was universally preferred. For 'cognition', participants understood both frequency and difficulty response scales; preferences were split, indicating no required modifications. Some overlap between items was noted ('mobility'-'activities', 'cognition'-'exhaustion'/'anxiety'/'pain'), but participants did not perceive redundancy and valued separate items for nuanced measurement. Most items were considered relevant, and participants suggested additional content on medical management, support, mental health impact, and free-text contextualisation. The seven-day recall period and instructions were generally well understood.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The EQ-HWB EMV2.1 demonstrates good content validity in a sample of patients with mobility problems, with most items comprehensible and relevant. The 'mobility' item would benefit from an example to reduce interpretive variability, while 'cognition' response options are appropriate. Some item overlap is expected in complex health populations, yet distinctions between items are meaningful. Participants highlighted the importance of healthcare experiences in quality-of-life assessment. These results inform instrument refinement, but final changes should integrate broader evidence from global validation studies across other populations and languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13546503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-026-02577-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The EQ-Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a generic measure assessing the impact of health, social care, and informal caregiving on quality of life. The 9-item short form, the EQ-HWB-9 v1.1 (experimental, 2022), underwent international validation, with subsequent modifications to item wording, response options, layout, and item order resulting in the EQ-HWB EMV2.1 (experimental modified, 2025). This study aimed to assess the content validity of this version in individuals with mobility problems.

Methods: Twelve adults in the UK with self-reported health conditions and mobility problems participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants described their health experiences, reviewed each EQ-HWB EMV2.1 item, and compared potential further modifications to the 'mobility' item wording and 'cognition' response options. Comprehension, relevance, comprehensiveness and preferences were explored using verbal probing. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis, guided by content validity domains, with double-coding for 25% of transcripts to ensure alignment.

Results: Participants (age 35-79 years) reported 35 health conditions. Eight items were understood as intended by all participants. The 'mobility' item presented varied interpretations (home-based limitations, daily activities, or aid use, n = 4), highlighting the need for an illustrative example, though no single wording was universally preferred. For 'cognition', participants understood both frequency and difficulty response scales; preferences were split, indicating no required modifications. Some overlap between items was noted ('mobility'-'activities', 'cognition'-'exhaustion'/'anxiety'/'pain'), but participants did not perceive redundancy and valued separate items for nuanced measurement. Most items were considered relevant, and participants suggested additional content on medical management, support, mental health impact, and free-text contextualisation. The seven-day recall period and instructions were generally well understood.

Conclusion: The EQ-HWB EMV2.1 demonstrates good content validity in a sample of patients with mobility problems, with most items comprehensible and relevant. The 'mobility' item would benefit from an example to reduce interpretive variability, while 'cognition' response options are appropriate. Some item overlap is expected in complex health populations, yet distinctions between items are meaningful. Participants highlighted the importance of healthcare experiences in quality-of-life assessment. These results inform instrument refinement, but final changes should integrate broader evidence from global validation studies across other populations and languages.

英国有行动障碍的成人EQ-HWB-9 v1.2潜在修改的定性测试
背景:EQ-Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB)是一种评估健康、社会照顾和非正式照顾对生活质量影响的通用指标。9个项目的简短形式,EQ-HWB-9 v1.1(实验性,2022年),进行了国际验证,随后对项目措辞、响应选项、布局和项目顺序进行了修改,产生了EQ-HWB-9 v1.2(实验性修改,2024年)。本研究旨在评估该版本在行动障碍个体中的内容效度。方法:在英国,12名自我报告健康状况和行动问题的成年人参加了半结构化访谈。参与者描述了他们的健康经历,审查了每个EQ-HWB-9 v1.2项目,并比较了对“流动性”项目措辞和“认知”回答选项的潜在进一步修改。运用言语探究探究理解性、关联性、综合性和偏好。在内容有效性域的指导下,使用框架分析对访谈进行转录和分析,对25%的转录进行双重编码以确保一致性。结果:参与者(35-79岁)报告了35种健康状况。所有与会者对8个项目的理解都符合预期。“流动性”项目有不同的解释(基于家庭的限制,日常活动,或援助使用,n = 4),强调需要一个说明性的例子,尽管没有一个单一的措辞是普遍首选的。对于“认知”,参与者理解频率和难度反应量表;偏好是分开的,表明不需要修改。一些项目之间的重叠被注意到(“流动性”-“活动”,“认知”-“疲惫”/“焦虑”/“疼痛”),但参与者没有感觉到冗余,并重视单独的项目进行细致的测量。大多数项目被认为是相关的,与会者建议增加关于医疗管理、支助、心理健康影响和自由文本语境化的内容。7天的召回期和说明一般都很好理解。结论:EQ-HWB-9 v1.2在行动障碍患者样本中显示出良好的内容效度,大多数项目可理解且相关。“流动性”项目将受益于一个例子,以减少解释的可变性,而“认知”的回答选项是适当的。在复杂的健康人群中,预计会有一些项目重叠,但项目之间的区别是有意义的。与会者强调了保健经验在生活质量评估中的重要性。这些结果为改进仪器提供了信息,但最终的修改应整合来自其他人群和语言的全球验证研究的更广泛证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书