OBJECTIVES: We developed a novel measurement (multi-attribute preference response, MAPR) model that is preference-based and patient-centered. In 2019 (ViH), based on the MAPR model, we introduced a generic patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) called CS-Base. We aimed to assess the performance of the CS-Base parallel to the established EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study based on a random sample of USA patients with various kinds of diseases. The CS-Base comprises 12 health items (mobility, vision, hearing, cognition, mood, anxiety, pain, fatigue, social functioning, daily activities, self-esteem, independence), whereas the EQ-5D-5L has 5 health items (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression). In addition, we used an ad-hoc and experimental version (5D) of the EQ-5D that was implemented in our MAPR model. The CS-Base and 5D were implemented in a special software application (HealthSnApp). The USA EQ-5D-5L tariff was used to calculate utilities. We studied the range of health items captured, estimated coefficients, values for diseases, and discrimination between health states.

RESULTS: Our sample comprised of 1989 respondents. All coefficients showed a logical order and statistically significant differences for both PROMs. The EQ-5D-5L item ‘usual activities’ had the lowest impact, the items ‘mobility’, ‘pain’, and ‘anxiety’ showed high or moderate impacts. High impacts were also observed for ‘vision’, ‘hearing’, and ‘cognition’ (not part of the EQ-5D-5L). Mean values in the different disease groups were overall comparable for the CS-Base and the 5D and the EQ-5D-5L, except for epilepsy and lung disease, these two diseases showed revered mean values. The values of the CS-Base were more densely and evenly distributed. A ceiling effect was observed for the EQ-5D-5L.

CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the CS-Base and the EQ-5D-5L provide comparable values. However, the CS-Base was better in discriminating between health states.