Comparison of howRU and EQ-5D measures of health-related quality of life in an outpatient clinic

Tim Benson, Henry W W Potts, Justin M Whatling, David Patterson


This paper reports on a head-to-head study of howRU and EQ-5D on patients with cardiovascular disease. howRU is a short generic measure of health-related quality of life comprising 39 words, designed for routine use, which we compare with EQ-5D (230 words). Patients attending a clinic completed both instruments. Completed data were available for 116 patients, 51% female, mean age 56 and SD 20. howRU is shorter, has better readability statistics, a higher completion rate, a wider range of states used and a smaller ceiling effect than EQ-5D. The correlations of howRU with EQ-5D are similar to those of EQ-5D with other validated instruments.


EQ-5D; health-related quality of life; health status; howRU; patient-reported outcomes; PROMs

Full Text:



Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. Brit Med J 2013;346:f167.

The NHS Outcomes Framework 2013–14. London: Department of Health. November 2012.

Cambria E, Benson T, Eckl C and Hussain A. Sentic PROMs: Application of sentic computing to the development of a novel unified framework for measuring health-care quality. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39:10533–43.

Benson T, Whatling J, Arikan S, Sizmur S, McDonald D and Ingram D. Evaluation of a new short generic measure of health status: howRU. Inform Prim Care 2010;18:89–101.

Brooks R, Rabin R and de Charro F. (eds.). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2003.

Szende A, Oppe M and Devlin N (eds.) EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Euroqol Group Monographs Volume 2, Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108.

DuBay W. The principles of readability. Costa Mesa CA: Impact Information, 2004.

McDowell I. Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Paz S, Jiu H, Fongwa M, Morales L and Hays R. Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys. Qual Life Res 2009;18:889–900.

Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Atherton Day N. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann of Med 2001;33:358–70.

Feng Y, Parkin D and Devlin N. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res 2013.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G and Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36.

Devlin N and Krabbe P. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ 2013;24(Suppl):S1–3.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

This is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal starting from Volume 21 without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accessFor permission regarding papers published in previous volumes, please contact us.

Privacy statement: The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Online ISSN 2058-4563 - Print ISSN 2058-4555. Published by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT