Measuring health-related quality of life and well-being: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of three generic preference-based measures and compare their performance in a sample of Hong Kong general population. METHODS: Data used for this analysis were obtained from a cross-sectional telephone-based survey in July 2020. Participants were asked to complete several measures, including The EuroQol five-dimensional five levels (EQ-5D-5L), Recovering Quality of Life-Utility Index (ReQoL-UI) and ICEpop CAPability measure for adults (ICECAP-A). Acceptability, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of three measures were assessed as well as the agreement between these instruments. RESULTS: Based on data from 500 participants to the survey, a lower mean score of the ICECAP-A (mean = 0.85) was observed compared to the other two measures (meanReQoL-UI = 0.92; meanEQ-5D-5L = 0.92). All three measures showed an acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.74, 0.82 and 0.77, respectively) as well as good test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.74, 0.82 and 0.77, respectively). Correlation analyses confirmed satisfactory convergent validity and the ability of the measures to differentiate between participants with different health or from socioeconomic status groups. The Bland-Altman plot revealed poor agreement between the three measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A were psychometrically robust to measure HRQoL in the general HK population. The EQ-5D-5L was more suitable for assessing physical HRQoL, whereas the ICECAP-A and ReQoL-UI were more appropriate for measuring interventions aimed at improving people's well-being and mental health.