Abstract
Background
The 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) has been increasingly used in China to measure the health status of the general population and patients. However, its content validity among rural residents in China has not been formally evaluated. This qualitative study aims to assess the content validity of EQ-5D-5L among rural Chinese.
Methods
Participants were recruited from four regions (North, South, East and West) across China. Eligible participants were those living in the rural area in last three years and making a living by agricultural operations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview transcripts were analysed to assess the comprehensibility, relevance, clarity and comprehensiveness.
Results
Sixty-two participants were included, comparable to the national figures regarding age, sex and education. For comprehensibility, participants could understand the ‘mobility’, ‘self-care’ and ‘usual activities’ domains well, but some reported confusions in ‘pain/discomfort’ (n = 42) and ‘anxiety/depression’ (n = 35). Some also reported difficulties in understanding anxiety (n = 6) and depression (n = 9), possibly due to the formal wording used. For relevance, all domains were reported as health-related and participants’ responses were based on their own health. For clarity, all could distinguish the five levels, but suggestions on reducing response levels and alternative wording for ‘slight’ were raised. For comprehensiveness, two aspects (fatigue/energy and appetite) were raised beyond the EQ-5D-5L domains. The ‘mobility’ domain was selected as the most important and ‘anxiety/depression’ as the least important.
Conclusion
Rural Chinese reported problems on the content validity of Chinese EQ-5D-5L. It might be sensible to consider some revisions to make it more understandable for rural residents.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of York, Centre for Health Economics, York, UK (GRID:grid.5685.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9668)
2 University of British Columbia, School of Population and Public Health, Vancouver, Canada (GRID:grid.17091.3e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2288 9830)
3 Tianjin University, School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin, China (GRID:grid.33763.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1761 2484)
4 China Pharmaceutical University, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, Nanjing, China (GRID:grid.254147.1) (ISNI:0000 0000 9776 7793)
5 Guizhou Medical University, School of Medicine and Health Management, Guiyang, China (GRID:grid.413458.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9330 9891)
6 Jinan University, College of Pharmacy, Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.258164.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1790 3548)





