OBJECTIVES: The EQ-HWB-S was developed as a measure of health and well-being for patients and for carers/caregivers. This study aims to examine the properties of the EQ-HWB-S in relation to the ASCOT and compare the discriminative ability of EQ-HWB-S, EQ-5D-5L, and ASCOT based on caregiver status and caregiver burden.

METHODS: An online panel of US-based respondents completed a survey that included the EQ-HWB Experimental Version, EQ-5D-5L, and ASCOT. In addition to item-level analysis, the EQ-HWB-S was scored using a non-preference-based scoring approach. We examined distribution of responses, strength of correlation between related items/constructs, and conducted known group comparisons based on caregiver status (yes/no) and caregiver burden (<20 or ≥20 hours spent per week providing care).

RESULTS: The dataset included a total of 903 respondents (carers=193; non-carers=710). 92 respondents reported low-caregiver burden while 91 high-caregiver burden in the last 7 days. Strong associations (r_s > 0.5) were found between conceptually overlapping dimensions ASCOT and EQ-HWB-S items: “Control” and “No control” or related dimensions (“Social situation” and “Lonely”/”Unsupported”). The EQ-HWB-S summary score tended to better discriminate than ASCOT index score based on caregiver status (F-ratio: 1.40, 95% Cl 0.51-5.89) and caregiver burden (F-ratio: 5.81, 95% Cl 0.71-7.83). EQ-HWB-S summary score also tended to be able to better discriminate than EQ-5D-5L index score across caregiver status (F-ratio: 2.30, 95% Cl 0.81-15.84) and burden (F-ratio: 5.81, 95% Cl 1.45-31.52).

CONCLUSIONS: Initial evidence supports the validity of the EQ-HWB/EQ-HWB-s as an outcome measure for caregivers. All measures (EQ-HWB-S, ASCOT, EQ-5D-5L) demonstrated discriminative ability among people who provide caregiving. The EQ-HWB-S tended to outperform both the ASCOT and EQ-5D, and highlights its future potential to be used as a measure in economic evaluation across sectors.