Skip to main content
Log in

Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured on population level may be useful to guide policies for health. This study aims to describe the HRQoL; in EQ-5D dimensions, mean rating scale (RS) scores and mean EQ-5D index values, in the general population, by certain disease and socio-economic groups, in Stockholm County 1998. The EQ-5D self-classifier and a RS were included in the 1998 cross-sectional postal Stockholm County public health survey to a representative sample (n = 4950, 20–88 years), 63% response rate. Mean RS score ranged from 0.90 (20–29 years) to 0.69 (80–88 years), mean EQ-5D index value ranged from 0.89 (20–29 years) to 0.74 (80–88 years). For different diseases mean RS scores ranged from 0.80 (asthma) to 0.69 (angina pectoris), mean EQ-5D index values ranged from 0.79 (asthma) to 0.66 (low back pain). The mean health state scores (RS and EQ-5D index) were 0.06 lower in the unskilled manual group than in the higher non-manual group after controlling for age and sex (p < 0.0001). This difference was 0.03 after controlling also for different diseases (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, our results show that the HRQoL varies greatly between socio-economic and disease groups. Furthermore, after controlling for age, sex and disease, HRQoL is lower in manual than in non-manual groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spilker B, Revicki DA. Taxonomy of quality of life. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Torrance GW. Measurements of health states utilities for economic appraisal: A review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks R. Health Status Measurement: A Perspective on Change. London: MacMillan, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. EuroQol Group. EuroQol — A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams A. The role of the EuroQol instrument in QALY calculations, discussion paper 130. University of York: York Centre for Health Economics, 1995.

  7. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time-trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141–154.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalog of health state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brooks R, with the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ohinmaa A, Eija H, Sintonen H. Modelling EuroQol values of Finnish adult population. In: Badia X, Herdman M, Segura A (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting, discussion papers. Barcelona: Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1995: 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Claes C, Greiner W, Uber A, Shulenburg J-M. The new German version of the EuroQol quality of life questionnaire. In: Rabin RE, Busschbach JJV, de Charro FTh, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting Rotterdam 1997, discussion papers. Rotterdam: Centre for Health Policy and Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1998: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, van der Maas PJ. Valuations of health states by the general public: Feasibility of a standardised measurement procedure. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31: 1201–1206.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nord E. EuroQol. Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time tradeoff. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 303–310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brooks R, Jendteg S, Lindgren B, Persson U, Björk S. EuroQol: Health-related quality of life. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy 1991; 18: 37–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Björk S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ 1999; 8: 117–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G. Valuation of EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 421–433.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-36 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000; 38: 115–121.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H. Quality of life of the Finnish population as measured by the EuroQol. In: Badia X, Herdman M, Segura A (eds), EuroQol Plenary Meeting, discussion papers. Barcelona: Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1995: 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol 5–D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 311–322.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br Med J 1998; 316: 736–741.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-36 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 155–166.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 128–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur J Public Health 1999; 9: 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Statistics Sweden. Yrkesklassificeringar i FoB 85 enligt Nordisk yrkesklassificering (NYK) och Socioekonomisk indelning (SEI). Occupations in Population and Housing Census 1985 (FoB 85) according to Nordic standard occupational classification and Swedish socio-economic classification. Reports on Statistical Co-ordination. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Björk S, Althin R. Health states considered worse than being dead. In: Björk S (ed), EuroQol Conference Proceedings, October 1991, Sweden. IHE Working Paper, Lund: IHE, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Macran S, Kind P. 'Death’ and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 217–227.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edn., Vols. 1 and 2, NC: SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Selvin S. Statistical Analysis of Epidemiological Data. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  32. White H. A heteroscedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 1980; 48: 817–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/ETS Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.11. NC: SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preference for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4(3): 315–329.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Peterson J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(5): 505–512.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making 1996; 16(3): 217–225.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998; 80(2): 189–194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ 1999; 8(6): 541–545.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D, discussion paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(1): 81–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Cutler DM, Richardson E. Measuring the health of the US population. Brookings paper on Economic Activity, Microeconomics 1997: 217–271.

  42. Cutler DM, Richardson E. The value of health: 1970–1990. Am Econ Rev Papers and Proceedings 1998; 88: 97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Välfärd, ofärd och ojämlikhet — levnadsförhållanden under 1990–talet. Welfare, misfortune and inequality — living conditions during the 1990s. SOU 2000:41. Stockholm: Norstedts tryckeri AB, 2000. (In Swedish).

    Google Scholar 

  45. OECD. OECD Health Data 2000. Paris: Credes, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burström, K., Johannesson, M. & Diderichsen, F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 10, 621–635 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171831202

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171831202

Navigation