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 (mean ReQoL-UI = 0.92; mean EQ-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.