EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S: Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?

Wenjing Zhou; Bo Ding; Jan Busschbach; Michael Herdman; Zhihao Yang; Yanming Lu

doi:10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4

EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S: Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?

Wenjing Zhou, Bo Ding, Jan Busschbach, Michael Herdman, Zhihao Yang^*, Yanming Lu^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Psychiatry

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background and Objectives:

‘Caregiver health spillovers’ refer to the broader impacts of an individual’s illness and interventions on informal caregivers’ health and well-being. This study focuses on the spillover effects experienced by parental carers of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aiming to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version (EQ-HWB-S) in capturing these effects.

Methods:

A longitudinal study was conducted with 861 parental carers of children aged 0–18 years with COVID-19 and 231 parents of healthy children as the control group. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S were used to assess parental health and well-being. Analyses included known-groups validity (multivariable regression), test–retest reliability (Gwet’s AC1, intraclass correlation coefficient) and responsiveness to health improvement (Glass’ Δ effect size).

Results:

Parents of infected children reported more problems than those of healthy controls. The EQ-HWB-S better discriminated between sub-groups defined by the child’s COVID-19 presence, caring time and work impact. Test–retest reliability was fair to good for EQ-HWB-S dimensions (Gwet’s AC1: 0.33–0.79), moderate to good for EQ-5D-5L (Gwet’s AC1: 0.40–0.76), and good for index scores and EQ VAS (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70–0.77). Parental health and well-being improved as children recovered, with the EQ-5D-5L showing slightly higher responsiveness (effect size: 0.77–0.87) than EQ-HWB-S (effect size: 0.62–0.74).

Conclusions:

Both EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L are valid, reliable and responsive for measuring parental spillover effects related to a child’s COVID-19 infection. EQ-HWB-S outperformed in distinguishing social and emotional impacts of caregiving, while EQ-5D-5L better captured physical health improvements. The choice between tools may depend on study objectives.

Original language	English
Article number	112382
Journal	PharmacoEconomics
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4
Publication status	Published - 5 Feb 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4Licence: CC BY-NC

EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-SFinal published version, 1.03 MBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{ab3b46c0ffb94c0ab5b777f0f02d9580,

title = "EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S: Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?",

abstract = "Background and Objectives:{\textquoteleft}Caregiver health spillovers{\textquoteright} refer to the broader impacts of an individual{\textquoteright}s illness and interventions on informal caregivers{\textquoteright} health and well-being. This study focuses on the spillover effects experienced by parental carers of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aiming to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version (EQ-HWB-S) in capturing these effects. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted with 861 parental carers of children aged 0–18 years with COVID-19 and 231 parents of healthy children as the control group. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S were used to assess parental health and well-being. Analyses included known-groups validity (multivariable regression), test–retest reliability (Gwet{\textquoteright}s AC1, intraclass correlation coefficient) and responsiveness to health improvement (Glass{\textquoteright} Δ effect size). Results: Parents of infected children reported more problems than those of healthy controls. The EQ-HWB-S better discriminated between sub-groups defined by the child{\textquoteright}s COVID-19 presence, caring time and work impact. Test–retest reliability was fair to good for EQ-HWB-S dimensions (Gwet{\textquoteright}s AC1: 0.33–0.79), moderate to good for EQ-5D-5L (Gwet{\textquoteright}s AC1: 0.40–0.76), and good for index scores and EQ VAS (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70–0.77). Parental health and well-being improved as children recovered, with the EQ-5D-5L showing slightly higher responsiveness (effect size: 0.77–0.87) than EQ-HWB-S (effect size: 0.62–0.74). Conclusions: Both EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L are valid, reliable and responsive for measuring parental spillover effects related to a child{\textquoteright}s COVID-19 infection. EQ-HWB-S outperformed in distinguishing social and emotional impacts of caregiving, while EQ-5D-5L better captured physical health improvements. The choice between tools may depend on study objectives.",

author = "Wenjing Zhou and Bo Ding and Jan Busschbach and Michael Herdman and Zhihao Yang and Yanming Lu",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2025.",

year = "2025",

month = feb,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4",

language = "English",

journal = "PharmacoEconomics",

issn = "1170-7690",

publisher = "Adis",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S

T2 - Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?

AU - Zhou, Wenjing

AU - Ding, Bo

AU - Busschbach, Jan

AU - Herdman, Michael

AU - Yang, Zhihao

AU - Lu, Yanming

PY - 2025/2/5

Y1 - 2025/2/5

N2 - Background and Objectives:‘Caregiver health spillovers’ refer to the broader impacts of an individual’s illness and interventions on informal caregivers’ health and well-being. This study focuses on the spillover effects experienced by parental carers of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aiming to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version (EQ-HWB-S) in capturing these effects. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted with 861 parental carers of children aged 0–18 years with COVID-19 and 231 parents of healthy children as the control group. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S were used to assess parental health and well-being. Analyses included known-groups validity (multivariable regression), test–retest reliability (Gwet’s AC1, intraclass correlation coefficient) and responsiveness to health improvement (Glass’ Δ effect size). Results: Parents of infected children reported more problems than those of healthy controls. The EQ-HWB-S better discriminated between sub-groups defined by the child’s COVID-19 presence, caring time and work impact. Test–retest reliability was fair to good for EQ-HWB-S dimensions (Gwet’s AC1: 0.33–0.79), moderate to good for EQ-5D-5L (Gwet’s AC1: 0.40–0.76), and good for index scores and EQ VAS (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70–0.77). Parental health and well-being improved as children recovered, with the EQ-5D-5L showing slightly higher responsiveness (effect size: 0.77–0.87) than EQ-HWB-S (effect size: 0.62–0.74). Conclusions: Both EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L are valid, reliable and responsive for measuring parental spillover effects related to a child’s COVID-19 infection. EQ-HWB-S outperformed in distinguishing social and emotional impacts of caregiving, while EQ-5D-5L better captured physical health improvements. The choice between tools may depend on study objectives.

AB - Background and Objectives:‘Caregiver health spillovers’ refer to the broader impacts of an individual’s illness and interventions on informal caregivers’ health and well-being. This study focuses on the spillover effects experienced by parental carers of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aiming to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version (EQ-HWB-S) in capturing these effects. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted with 861 parental carers of children aged 0–18 years with COVID-19 and 231 parents of healthy children as the control group. The EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S were used to assess parental health and well-being. Analyses included known-groups validity (multivariable regression), test–retest reliability (Gwet’s AC1, intraclass correlation coefficient) and responsiveness to health improvement (Glass’ Δ effect size). Results: Parents of infected children reported more problems than those of healthy controls. The EQ-HWB-S better discriminated between sub-groups defined by the child’s COVID-19 presence, caring time and work impact. Test–retest reliability was fair to good for EQ-HWB-S dimensions (Gwet’s AC1: 0.33–0.79), moderate to good for EQ-5D-5L (Gwet’s AC1: 0.40–0.76), and good for index scores and EQ VAS (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70–0.77). Parental health and well-being improved as children recovered, with the EQ-5D-5L showing slightly higher responsiveness (effect size: 0.77–0.87) than EQ-HWB-S (effect size: 0.62–0.74). Conclusions: Both EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L are valid, reliable and responsive for measuring parental spillover effects related to a child’s COVID-19 infection. EQ-HWB-S outperformed in distinguishing social and emotional impacts of caregiving, while EQ-5D-5L better captured physical health improvements. The choice between tools may depend on study objectives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85217676956&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4

DO - 10.1007/s40273-025-01473-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 39907985

AN - SCOPUS:85217676956

SN - 1170-7690

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

M1 - 112382

ER -

EQ-5D-5L or EQ-HWB-S: Which is the Better Instrument for Capturing Spillover Effects in Parental Carers of Children with COVID-19?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this