Translation and psychometric assessment of the Thai vision bolt-on EQ-5D versions revealed significant validity and responsiveness in patients with visual impairment.
This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Thai versions of the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L, comparing them with the standard EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS in individuals with varying degrees of visual impairment. Following EuroQol Translation Guidelines, the vision bolt-on items were translated through forward-backward processes and underwent cognitive debriefing. A total of 301 participants were interviewed at baseline, with 275 completing a 2-week follow-up. Known-groups validity was assessed based on visual acuity classifications and comorbidity status; convergent validity was tested by using Spearman's correlations. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and weighted kappa. Responsiveness was analyzed using a standardized effect size in participants who reported better or worse vision. Both versions of the vision bolt-on had no missing data and demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC range 0.62-0.64). They effectively differentiated quality-of-life scores across varying degrees of vision impairment, showing reduced ceiling effects (5%-9%) compared with the standard EQ-5D. Correlations with EQ-VAS were moderate (rho 0.40-0.45). When participants reported improved vision, the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L exhibited the highest responsiveness, whereas all instruments were generally less responsive for worsening vision. The Thai versions of the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L demonstrated acceptable reliability, validity, and moderate responsiveness for capturing vision-related health changes, with the 5L version showing slightly greater sensitivity. These findings support the usefulness of adding a vision dimension to EQ-5D for Thai-speaking populations, facilitating more precise evaluations of interventions targeting visual health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Surawatsatien et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: