Table 4 Proportion of “no problem” responses on EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L and ceiling effect reduction
From: Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults
Sample aged ≤30 (n = 624) | Sample aged >30 (n = 303) | Overall sample (n = 927) | Sample aged ≤30 (n = 624) | Sample aged >30 (n = 303) | Overall sample (n = 927) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3L | 5L | p a | 3L | 5L | p a | 3L | 5L | p a | Absolute | Relative (%) | Absolute | Relative (%) | Absolute | Relative (%) | |
FH | 376 (62.1 %) | 288 (46.4 %) | 0.001 | 168 (58.7 %) | 141 (46.8 %) | 0.001 | 544 (61.1 %) | 429 (46.5 %) | 0.001 | 15.7 % | 25.3 % | 11.9 % | 20.3 % | 14.6 % | 23.9 % |
MO | 608 (97.7 %) | 600 (96.5 %) | 0.021 | 286 (95.3 %) | 285 (94.1 %) | 0.250 | 894 (97.0 %) | 885 (95.7 %) | 0.003 | 1.2 % | 1.2 % | 1.2 % | 1.3 % | 1.3 % | 1.3 % |
SC | 617 (99.5 %) | 619 (99.5 %) | 1.000 | 293 (99.3 %) | 300 (99.0 %) | 1.000 | 910 (99.5 %) | 919 (99.4 %) | 1.000 | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.3 % | 0.3 % | 0.1 % | 0.1 % |
UA | 587 (94.8 %) | 580 (93.1 %) | 0.003 | 281 (94.3 %) | 274 (90.7 %) | 0.013 | 868 (94.7 %) | 854 (92.3 %) | 0.001 | 1.7 % | 1.8 % | 3.6 % | 3.8 % | 2.4 % | 2.5 % |
PD | 493 (80.3 %) | 428 (68.7 %) | 0.001 | 220 (74.1 %) | 196 (64.7 %) | 0.001 | 713 (78.3 %) | 624 (67.4 %) | 0.001 | 11.6 % | 14.4 % | 9.4 % | 12.7 % | 10.9 % | 13.9 % |
AD | 443 (71.9 %) | 382 (61.3 %) | 0.001 | 216 (73.5 %) | 190 (62.9 %) | 0.001 | 659 (72.4 %) | 572 (61.8 %) | 0.001 | 10.6 % | 14.7 % | 10.6 % | 14.4 % | 10.6 % | 14.6 % |