Health-related quality of life of younger and older lower-income households in Malaysia

Hussein Rizal; Mas Ayu Said; Hazreen Abdul Majid; Tin Tin Su; Tan Maw Pin; Rozmi Ismail; Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263751

. 2022 Feb 8;17(2):e0263751. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263751

Health-related quality of life of younger and older lower-income households in Malaysia

Hussein Rizal ^1,², Mas Ayu Said ^1,^3,^*, Hazreen Abdul Majid ^1,^2,⁴, Tin Tin Su ⁵, Tan Maw Pin ⁶, Rozmi Ismail ⁷, Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi ⁸

Editor: Hoh Boon-Peng⁹

¹Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

²Centre for Population Health (CePH), Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

³Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

⁴Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

⁵South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO) and Global Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Monash University, Bandar Sunway, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

⁶Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

⁷Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanity, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor

⁸Faculty of Economics and Management, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor

⁹UCSI University, MALAYSIA

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: mas@ummc.edu.my

Roles

Hussein Rizal: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Mas Ayu Said: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Hazreen Abdul Majid: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Tin Tin Su: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Tan Maw Pin: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Rozmi Ismail: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Hoh Boon-Peng: Editor

PMCID: PMC8824345 PMID: 35134086

Abstract

Background

Globally, a lower income is associated with poorer health status and reduced quality of life (QOL). However, more research is needed on how being older may influence QOL in lower-income households, particularly as older age is associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases and care needs. To this end, the current study attempts to determine the health-related QOL (HRQOL) among individuals from lower-income households aged 60 years and over compared to lower-income adults aged less than 60 years.

Methods

Participants were identified from the Department of Statistics Malaysia sampling frame. Surveys were carried out with individual households aged 18 years and older through self-administered questionnaires. Information was collected on demographics, household income, employment status, number of diseases, and HRQOL assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tool.

Results

Out of a total of 1899 participants, 620 (32.6%) were female and 328 (17.3%) were aged 60 years and above. The mean (SD) age was 45.2 (14.1) and mean (SD) household income was RM2124 (1356). Compared with younger individuals, older respondents were more likely to experience difficulties in mobility (32.1% vs 9.7%, p<0.001), self-care (11.6% vs 3.8%, p<0.001), usual activities (24.5% vs 9.1%, p<0.001), pain/discomfort (38.8% vs 16.5%, p<0.001) and anxiety/depression (21.4% vs 13.5%, p<0.001). The mean (SD) EQ-5D index scores were lower among older respondents, 0.89 (0.16) vs 0.95 (0.13), p = 0.001. After adjusting for covariates, age was a significant influencing factor (p = 0.001) for mobility (OR = 2.038, 95% CI:1.439–2.885), usual activities (OR = 1.957, 95% CI:1.353–2.832) and pain or discomfort (OR = 2.241, 95% CI:1.690–2.972).

Conclusion

Lower-income older adults had poorer HRQOL compared to their younger counterparts. This has important implications concerning intervention strategies that incorporate active ageing concepts on an individual and policy-making level to enhance the QOL and wellbeing, particularly among the older lower-income population.

Introduction

Several studies found that quality of life (QOL) in their study population worsens with increasing age [1, 2]. Older people have higher probability of suffering from multiple health disorders due to experiencing reduced physical and mental functions. Loneliness, impaired sexual activity and chronic metabolic disorders are some of the causes that can result in emotional disturbances which lead to reduced QOL [3]. This is of particular concern with global population ageing, as population ageing is accelerated in many middle-income developing nations, and most older persons now reside in lower and middle-income countries [4]. The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines QOL as “an individual’s perception of their position in their life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” [5]. It is a broad concept that affects the individual in a complicated way, including physical health, psychological status, social relationships, and their relationship with their surrounding environment.

Enhancing and maintaining the QOL as a person ages is the primary goal of active ageing [6]. The ageing well concept is viewed as a combination of good health status, participation in paid and unpaid activities, and assurance of social, financial, and physical security [7]. As the population becomes older, there is an increasing burden of chronic diseases, the risk of an unhealthy lifestyle and economic challenges. Thus, interest in tracking the changes in QOL has increased in the research community. The findings from studies that focus on these issues may provide evidence-based measures that can be drawn on to promote active ageing, which focuses on physical and mental health and a broader dimension that includes other contributing factors such as social interactions and the environment [8–10]. One effective instrument to measure health-related QOL (HRQOL) is the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tool [11]. Aside from its robust validity and reliability, the tool is short and uses simple language, making it easy to answer and suitable for widescale use among Malaysians [11–14]. Studies of EQ-5D in Malaysia used non-Malaysian tariffs to obtain utility health states [12, 15], sampled among the general population [12, 13], patient setting [16, 17], and low-income groups [18].

Analysis of the EQ-5D responses by demographic variables found significant differences among categories of age, gender, and self-reported chronic medical conditions [19, 20]. Other studies using the EQ-5D also demonstrated lower scores in older individuals than younger ones [19, 21], lower scores in women than in men, and lower scores in individuals of lower economic status compared with higher socioeconomic status [22, 23]. As the presence of chronic diseases is strongly linked with physical health and QOL [24], the increasing trend of chronic diseases reported by the National Health Morbidity Survey (NHMS) is more detrimental to the lower-income group [25]. Previous studies comparing sociodemographic status and HRQOL consistently showed that low income is associated with low HRQOL despite differing countries and samples, even after controlling for risk factors such as chronic diseases [26, 27].

Empirical analyses concerning HRQOL could further extend the understanding of health inequalities. They indicate that low health status groups are faced with a double burden, first by increased levels of health impairments and second by lower levels of HRQOL once health is impaired [26]. The interactions between differing kinds of inequality and its factors are often complex, multidirectional, and inter-related. People can find it more difficult to move away from unhealthy behaviours if they are worse off in a wider range of determinants of health. For example, lower socio-economic groups tend to have a higher prevalence of risky health behaviours, poor diet, limited access to care and less opportunity to lead healthy lives. In addition, disadvantages are concentrated in particular sectors of the population and can be mutually reinforcing [28]. This means that the low-income population living in close proximity together reinforces their accumulative disadvantage such as being in their psychological comfort zone, lower education quality in terms of access to better schools and to afford tuitions, and limited occupational opportunities due to lower education and skill level.

These issues have been exacerbated since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has worsened the situation due to the rapid decline in the economy [20]. Given that people with lower socioeconomic status were the most affected by rising non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the objective of this study is to determine the differences in HRQOL within lower-income households in Malaysia, particularly among younger and older individuals. This study also attempts to identify factors influencing HRQOL.

Methods

Study sample

The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) utilised a simple random sampling method to identify eligible participants aged 18 years and older. Low-income participants were identified as being in the Bottom 40 (B40) group characterised as having an income of less than RM4,850 [29]. Household income information was used to identify participants in the B40 income group. With a total population of 32.75 million as of the first quarter of 2021 [30], 2125 participants were recruited from six Malaysian states, including Selangor, Pahang, Sabah, Sarawak, Pulau Pinang and Johor. A total of six out of the 13 states were selected through the representation of each region [29]. For example, in the Western Peninsula, the central region is Selangor, the northern region is Pulau Pinang, the southern region is Johor, and the eastern region is Pahang. Whereas the Eastern Peninsula is Sabah and Sarawak. The municipalities of Seberang Perai, Selayang, Ampang, Subang Jaya, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya, Johor Bahru, Kuantan, Kuching Utara, Kuching Selatan, Padawan dan Kota Kinabalu were randomly selected in each respective state (S1 Table).

Study design and duration

A cross-sectional study was conducted from 1^st September 2020 until 24^th October 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to an increase in cases, data collection was continued from January 25^th until February 15^th, 2021. Enumerators acquired signed consent and administered the self-reported questionnaire to the participants.

Data collection

The questionnaire consisted of categorical questions such as gender, ethnicity, educational level, marital status, occupational status, total household income, number of diseases and QOL. The reported chronic diseases cover eight major medical conditions such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, cancer, asthma, stroke, and mental illness.

Quality of life instrument

The translated validated Malay version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tool (S2 Table) consists of a descriptive system and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) [11]. The descriptive system classifies health into five distinct dimensions, which includes: (1) Mobility, (2) Self-care, (3) Usual activities, (4) Pain/discomfort and, (5) Anxiety/depression [31, 32]. Within each dimension, participants were asked to describe their perceived current health status using five levels (Likert scale) of severity comprising of: (1) Having no problems, (2) Having slight problems, (3) Having moderate problems, (4) Having severe problems and, (5) Unable to/having extreme problems [31, 32]. The EQ-VAS, on the other hand, is a hash-marked vertical scale ranging from 0 to 100, in which 0 represents the worst imaginable health (death) and 100 for the best imaginable health. It is a continuous scale that measures a person’s subjective health. The EQ-5D-5L instrument was validated in the general population and the patient group setting and thus encouraged the application in health-related research in Malaysia [11–13]. The data collected can be presented in three ways: (1) as a health profile, (2) as a measure of overall self-rated health status and (3) as an index value. The Malaysian EQ-5D value set was applied to calculate values of all health states generated by the tool, which has a range of -0.442 to 1 [13, 14]. The value set for the original version of the tool ranged from 0 to 1.

Data analysis

Frequency analysis was carried out to identify missing values and extreme values. Extreme values that were deemed as a case of wrong data entry were deleted and assigned a missing value. The main outcomes described in this study includes the EQ-5D-5L values and each of its dimensions and EQ-VAS. The EQ-5D-5L values represented the HRQOL and were presented descriptively and in the form of an index score. The continuous variable of age was dichotomised into two groups: younger, characterised as an individual aged 18 to 59 years old and older, characterised as an individual aged 60 years or older, respectively (Tables 1 and 3). Each dimension of the five-level model was dichotomised to “no problems at all”, defined as a score of one and “some to severe problems” defined as a score of two. Normality test using Shapiro Wilk test showed that the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS were not normally distributed (p < 0.05) and thus were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis test to identify the difference in HRQOL between the younger and older group. Further analysis of logistic regression was conducted for each dichotomised dimension of EQ-5D and is used as the dependent variable. The Chi-square test was used to measure the relationship of each dependent variable. Age category and number of diseases were identified as the primary indicators, followed by gender, ethnicity, marital status, educational status, and employment status. Statistical significance was set at a two-sided p-value of 0.05. The backward stepwise regression was used, which is a stepwise regression approach that begins with a full (saturated) model and at each step gradually eliminates variables from the regression model to find a reduced model that best explains the data. This method was applied to each dimension of EQ-5D. The cut-off value of 0.50 for the regression, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were applied. All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information file (S1 Appendix).

Table 1. Characteristics of younger and older participants.

Description	Younger (18–59 years old)			Older (≥60 years old)			p-value
Description	n	%	Mean (SD)	n	%	Mean (SD)	p-value
Age (year)			40.76 (10.83)			66.58 (5.85)	0.001
Gender	1571	82.7		328	17.3		0.991
Male	1058	67.3		221	67.4
Female	513	32.7		107	32.6
Ethnicity	1556	82.8		323	17.2		0.001
Malay / Bumiputera	1326	85.2		238	73.7
Chinese	102	6.6		54	16.7
Indian	128	8.2		31	9.6
Marital Status	1568	82.7		328	17.3		0.001
Married	1120	71.4		228	69.5
Unmarried	261	16.6		8	2.5
Divorced/separated	187	12.0		92	28.0
Employment	1571	82.7		328	17.3		0.001
Employed	1238	78.8		95	29.0
Unemployed	333	21.2		233	71.0
Chronic Disease	1571	82.7		328	17.3		0.001
0	1190	75.7		146	44.5
1	251	16.0		106	32.3
2	106	6.7		59	18.0
3 or more	24	1.6		17	5.2
Education Level	1524	82.8		309	17.2		0.001
Primary	386	25.3		192	62.1
Secondary	695	45.6		85	27.5
Pre-university	285	18.7		18	5.8
University	158	10.4		14	4.6

Open in a new tab

Continuous measured using independent t-test, categorical measured using chi-square. Bold values are statistically significant.

Table 3. Percentage of reported problems among younger and older groups in EQ-5D.

	Mobility			Self-care			Usual Activities			Pain / Discomfort			Anxiety / Depression			Total Index Score
	Young	Older	p-value	Young	Older	p-value	Young	Older	p-value	Young	Older	p-value	Young	Older	p-value	Young	Older	p-value
Total, (n)	9.7 (152)	32.1 (105)	0.001	3.8 (59)	11.6 (38)	0.001	9.1 (142)	24.5 (80)	0.001	16.5 (258)	38.8 (127)	0.001	13.5 (210)	21.4 (70)	0.001	27.0 (423)	51.4 (168)	0.001
Gender			0.010			0.063			0.078			0.083			0.117			0.035
Male	9.2	26.2		3.4	9.5		8.6	21.3		15.6	36.7		12.6	20.4		24.9	49.3
Female	10.7	44.3		4.5	16.0		10.0	31.1		18.4	43.4		15.2	23.6		31.3	55.7
Ethnicity			0.156			0.497			0.318			0.779			0.935			0.050
Malay/Bumi	9.6	33.6		4.1	12.2		9.3	26.1		16.6	41.2		13.5	22.3		27.7	53.8
Chinese	12.9	30.2		3.0	9.4		9.9	22.6		15.8	34.0		13.9	15.1		26.7	49.1
Indian	9.4	29.0		1.6	9.7		7.0	16.1		15.6	32.3		13.3	25.8		20.3	38.7
Marital Status			0.001			0.001			0.002			0.001			0.001			0.001
Married	9.5	28.6		3.1	9.3		8.3	21.6		15.9	36.6		12.6	19.4		25.8	48.9
Unmarried	5.0	12.5		5.0	12.5		10.7	25.0		14.6	25.0		13.1	0.0		24.5	25.0
Divorced	17.6	42.4		5.9	17.4		11.2	31.5		22.5	45.7		18.8	28.3		37.4	59.8
Employment			0.001			0.001			0.001			0.001			0.220			0.009
Yes	7.5	23.2		2.3	7.4		7.9	17.9		15.6	31.6		13.9	17.9		25.3	46.3
No	17.8	35.8		9.4	13.4		13.3	27.2		19.9	41.8		11.8	22.8		33.2	53.4
Chronic Disease			0.001			0.001			0.001			0.001			0.001			0.001
0	6.3	22.1		3.3	6.2		6.7	17.2		12.6	26.2		11.1	14.5		21.7	38.6
1	18.8	34.0		4.4	15.1		13.2	24.5		26.4	42.5		17.7	20.8		41.6	55.7
2	23.8	40.7		6.6	11.9		19.8	32.2		31.4	52.5		27.6	32.2		46.2	64.4
3 or more	20.8	76.5		8.3	35.3		33.3	58.8		41.7	76.5		25.0	47.1		50.0	88.2
Education level			0.001			0.069			0.006			0.001			0.047			0.001
Primary	15.1	32.8		4.1	11.5		10.1	25.0		20.7	38.5		16.1	21.4		33.4	53.1
Secondary	8.5	32.1		3.6	8.3		7.8	19.0		17.8	33.3		12.8	15.5		25.4	44.0
Pre-university	6.7	33.3		3.9	16.7		10.5	33.3		11.6	50.0		10.5	44.4		24.9	55.6
University	6.3	14.3		1.9	7.1		8.9	21.4		12.7	35.7		17.1	14.3		25.3	35.7

Open in a new tab

Bold values are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

Ethical considerations

A consent form was given and signed by the participants before answering the survey. The study was approved by the University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UMREC) (Reference number: UM.TNC2/UMREC_1215). This study prescribes the ethics upheld by the Helsinki Declaration.

Results

Characteristics of the participants

Out of the 2125 participants recruited, a total of 1899 completed the questionnaire. The mean and standard deviation (SD) for age was 45.2 (14.1) years. The frequency and percentage for males were 1279 (67.4%) and for females were 620 (32.6%); Malay and Bumiputera were 1564 (83.2%), Chinese were 156 (8.3%) and Indian were 159 (8.5%); married individuals were 1348 (71.1%), unmarried were 269 (14.2%) and divorced or separated were 279 (14.7%); currently employed were 1333 (70.2%) and currently unemployed were 566 (29.8%); individuals without any chronic disease were 1336 (70.4%), with one chronic disease were 357 (18.8%), with two chronic diseases were 165 (8.7%) and with three or more chronic diseases were 41 (2.1%); highest education at primary level were 578 (31.5%), secondary were 780 (42.6%), pre-university were 303 (16.5%) and university were 172 (9.4%). Table 1 further characterises participants into the younger (aged 18–59 years old) and older (aged 60 years and above) groups.

HRQOL

The participants scored an overall mean EQ-5D index score of 0.93 (0.15) and a mean EQ-VAS score of 83.76 (12.77). The highest possible score of EQ-5D index score of 1 was reported at 68.1%, whereas the highest possible EQ-VAS score of 100 was at 16.1%. Age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, chronic diseases and education level were significantly associated with the EQ-5D index (p<0.05), whereas only the number of chronic diseases was seen to be significantly associated with EQ-VAS (p = 0.001) as seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of participants’ EQ-5D index and Visual Analogue (VAS) score.

Independent Variables	EQ-5D Index		Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Independent Variables	Mean (SD)	p-value	Mean (SD)	p-value
Total	0.93 (0.15)		83.76 (12.77)
Age		0.001		0.665
Less than 60 years old	0.95 (0.13)		84.00 (12.60)
60 years and older	0.89 (0.16)		83.71 (12.62)
Gender		0.006		0.325
Male	0.94 (0.15)		83.62 (12.78)
Female	0.93 (0.13)		84.05 (12.76)
Ethnicity		0.034		0.223
Malay / Bumiputera	0.94 (0.14)		83.61 (12.82)
Chinese	0.89 (0.21)		85.22 (12.54)
Indian	0.94 (0.15)		83.83 (12.32)
Marital Status		0.001		0.789
Married	0.94 (0.15)		83.94 (12.60)
Unmarried	0.95 (0.13)		83.59 (13.21)
Divorced / separated	0.90 (0.16)		83.15 (13.13)
Employment		0.001		0.279
Yes	0.95 (0.14)		84.04 (12.54)
No	0.90 (0.17)		83.12 (13.30)
Chronic Disease		0.001		0.001
0	0.95 (0.14)		84.33 (12.58)
1	0.92 (0.14)		82.93 (12.92)
2	0.88 (0.17)		83.16 (12.73)
3 or more	0.78 (0.27)		76.50 (14.58)
Education level		0.001		0.599
Primary	0.92 (0.17)		83.09 (13.726)
Secondary	0.94 (0.15)		83.91 (12.428)
Pre-University	0.95 (0.12)		84.14 (12.574)
University	0.96 (0.08)		85.30 (11.221)

Open in a new tab

Bold values are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

In Table 3, age (p = 0.001), gender (p = 0.010), marital status (p = 0.001), employment status (p = 0.001), chronic diseases (p = 0.001) and education level (p = 0.001) were significantly associated with problems reported for mobility. For self-care, age (p = 0.001), marital status (p = 0.001), employment status (p = 0.001) and chronic diseases (p = 0.001) were reported as problems. For usual activities, age (p = 0.001), marital status (p = 0.002), employment status (p = 0.001), chronic diseases (p = 0.001) and education level (p = 0.006) were reported as problems. Similarly, pain or discomfort reported problems was significant (p = 0.001) for age, marital status, employment status, chronic diseases, and education level. For anxiety or depression reported problems for age (p = 0.001), marital status (p = 0.001), chronic diseases (p = 0.001) and education level (p = 0.047). Finally, total EQ-5D showed the problems reported for age (p = 0.001), gender (p = 0.035), marital status (p = 0.001), employment status (p = 0.009), number of chronic diseases (p = 0.001) and education (p = 0.001)

Multivariate logistic regression analysis

Each dimension of the EQ-5D tool has been dichotomised as to having: (1) No problems at all and (2) Having some to severe problems. Independent variables of interest were age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, number of chronic diseases and education level. Only the final model of the backward stepwise regression and variables which exerted a significant relationship with any dimension from EQ-5D was reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression on the relationship of EQ-5D and influencing factors.

Influencing factors (final model)		B	SE	p-value	Odds ratio	95%CI
Mobility
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.712	0.177	0.001	2.038	1.439–2.885
Marital status	Married	0			1
	Unmarried	- 0.562	0.296	0.058	0.570	0.319–1.018
	Divorced / Separated	0.493	0.179	0.006	1.637	1.152–2.325
Employment status	Yes	0			1
Employment status	No	0.713	0.163	0.001	2.040	1.481–2.810
Number of diseases	No disease	0			1
	1 disease	0.983	0.174	0.001	2.673	1.902–3.756
	2 diseases	1.249	0.215	0.001	3.488	2.290–5.312
	3 or more diseases	1.677	0.357	0.001	5.350	2.659–10.763
Self-care
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.440	0.258	0.088	1.553	0.936–2.574
Marital status	Married	0			1
	Unmarried	0.589	0.321	0.066	1.803	0.961–3.384
	Divorced / Separated	0.515	0.256	0.044	1.674	1.013–2.765
Employment status	Yes	0			1
Employment status	No	1.199	0.244	0.001	3.318	2.055–5.375
Number of diseases	No disease	0			1
	1 disease	0.535	0.261	0.040	1.708	1.023–2.850
	2 diseases	0.552	0.332	0.097	1.737	0.905–3.333
	3 or more diseases	1.292	0.444	0.004	3.641	1.527–8.685
Usual Activities
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.672	0.189	0.001	1.957	1.353–2.832
Employment status	Yes	0			1
Employment status	No	0.387	0.173	0.025	1.473	1.050–2.066
Number of diseases	No disease	0			1
	1 disease	0.674	0.185	0.001	1.962	1.364–2.821
	2 diseases	1.076	0.223	0.001	2.933	1.895–4.539
	3 or more diseases	1.856	0.348	0.001	6.400	3.236–12.659
Pain / Discomfort
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.807	0.144	0.001	2.241	1.690–2.972
Number of diseases	No disease	0			1
	1 disease	0.824	0.146	0.001	2.279	1.712–3.034
	2 diseases	1.145	0.188	0.001	3.141	2.171–4.544
	3 or more diseases	1.787	0.335	0.001	5.972	3.098–11.513
Anxiety / Depression
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.210	0.171	0.220	1.234	0.882–1.727
Marital status	Married	0			1
	Unmarried	0.085	0.205	0.678	1.089	0.728–1.628
	Divorced / Separated	0.434	0.175	0.013	1.544	1.096–2.174
Number of diseases	No disease	0			1
	1 disease	0.443	0.170	0.009	1.557	1.115–2.173
	2 diseases	1.062	0.202	0.001	2.893	1.945–4.301
	3 or more diseases	1.209	0.354	0.001	3.349	1.673–6.704
Total Index Score
Age	Less than 60 years old	0			1
Age	More than 60 years old	0.523	0.154	0.001	1.687	1.248–2.282
Gender	Male	0			1
Gender	Female	0.230	0.114	0.043	1.259	1.008–1.574
Ethnicity	Malay	0			1
	Chinese	-0.22	0.192	0.910	0.672	0.672–1.425
	Indian	-0.559	0.209	0.007	0.380	0.380–0.861
Employment status	Yes	0			1
Employment status	No	0.224	0.129	0.083	1.251	0.972–1.610
Number of diseases	No diseases	0			1
	1 disease	0.863	0.133	0.001	2.382	1.836–3.089
	2 diseases	1.059	0.180	0.001	2.885	2.027–4.106
	3 or more diseases	1.566	0.350	0.001	4.787	2.413–9.497
Education level	Primary	0			1
	Secondary	-0.317	0.128	0.013	0.728	0.567–0.936
	Pre-university	-0.240	0.169	0.155	0.787	0.565–1.095
	University	-0.141	0.207	0.495	0.868	0.579–1.302

Open in a new tab

Bold values are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

The final model of the logistical regression analysis revealed an association between mobility and the older group (OR = 2.038, 95% CI:1.439–2.885), the divorced or separated (OR = 1.637, 95% CI:1.152–2.325), lack of employment (OR = 2.040, 95% CI:1.481–2.810) and having one (OR = 2.673, 95% CI:1.902–3.756), two (OR = 3.488, 95% CI:2.290–5.312), and three or more diseases (OR = 5.350, 95% CI:2.659–10.753). For self-care, older age was no longer significantly associated with reduced QOL, after adjustment for being divorced or separated (OR = 1.674, 95% CI:1.013–2.765), lack of employment (OR = 3.318, 95% CI:2.055–5.375) and having one (OR = 1.708, 95% CI:1.023–2.850) or three chronic diseases (OR = 3.641, 95% CI:1.527–8.685). For usual activities, being 60 years or older (OR = 1.957, 95% CI:1.353–2.832) remained significantly associated with reported problems in EQ-5D, after adjustment for lack of employment (OR = 1.473, 95% CI:1.050–2.066) and having one (OR = 1.962, 95% CI:1.364–2.821), two (OR = 2.933, 95% CI:1.895–4.539), and three or more diseases (OR = 6.400, 95% CI:3.236–12.659).

For pain or discomfort, being 60 years or older (OR = 2.241, 95% CI:1.690–2.972) and having one (OR = 2.279, 95% CI:1.712–3.034), two (OR = 3.141, 95% CI:2.171–4.544), and three or more diseases (OR = 5.972, 95% CI:3.098–11.513) were reported as problems. Within the anxiety/depression domain, being older was no longer significantly associated with reported problems in EQ5D, after adjustments for being divorced or separated (OR = 1.544, 95% CI:1.096–2.174) and having one (OR = 1.557, 95% CI:1.115–2.173), two (OR = 2.893, 95% CI:1.945–4.301), and three or more diseases (OR = 3.349, 95% CI:1.673–6.704). Finally, the total index score reported problems for those aged 60 years and older (OR = 1.687, 95% CI:1.248–2.282), female (OR = 1.259, 95% CI:1.008–1.574), have one (OR = 2.382, 95% CI:1.836–3.089), two (OR = 2.885, 95% CI:2.027–4.106), and three or more diseases (OR = 4.787, 95% CI:2.413–9.497). Malays and those with primary level education reported higher figures when compared to Indians (OR = 0.380, 95% CI:0.380–0.861) and those with secondary school education (OR = 0.728, 95% CI:0.567–0.936).

Discussion

Within the lower-income households surveyed in this representative, nationwide study, head of households aged 60 years and over were significantly more likely to report problems within the EQ-5D domains of mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort. Whereas the increased likelihood of reported problems in the self-care and anxiety/depression domains was accounted for by marital status, employment, and number of diseases. Adjacent to the HRQOL dimensions, previous total index scores conducted among similar sociodemographic reported lower HRQOL [18]. The scores were similar among nonprescribed pharmaceutical customers [15] and reported exact figures for the normal population [12]. These studies, however, had a smaller sample size and sampling bias, which reduced the generalisability with the present study [12, 18]. In addition, these studies utilised the United Kingdom EQ-5D questionnaire health states scoring system [15] compared to the Malaysian version used in the present study [13]. This social tariff might not be valid due to the differences in socioeconomic status between countries, which would be reflected in the health states [15]. In addition, people in different countries may refer to the levels of health differently due to cultural differences [33–35].

Juxtaposed with the same study [18], age was not significantly associated with HRQOL. The counterevidence point towards the overwhelming effect of age on HRQOL [15, 20, 36–38], similar to the present study. The implications of an ageing phenomenon include structural changes to families and households, social networks and interaction, leisure, housing and transportation, welfare services and pension, saving and consumption behaviour, and labour markets [39]. Hence, it is imperative to uplift the QOL of the older generation. Interestingly, older age was no longer significant for self-care and anxiety/depression after adjusting for the covariates. Similar findings were found in China [20] and Switzerland [40]. As life expectancy has increased considerably, many challenges emerge, highlighting the need to organise healthcare and anticipate age-related health problems [20]. Therefore, older people receive better care, suffer from fewer disabilities or cope better with the limitations. There have been improvements in assistive technology for self-care, housing standards, transportation, as well as inclusive social policies [41]. The challenge is not living longer, but preserving the highest levels of QOL as long as possible [42, 43].

Significant associations between QOL and chronic diseases were also found in the present study. The presence of chronic disease is a contributing factor in many studies [18–20, 36]. The NHMS reported NCDs in 2015 and 2019, where 30% of Malaysians were hypertensive, 18.3% were diabetic, and 38.1% had high cholesterol levels [25, 44]. The presence of chronic diseases significantly affected the health and QOL caused by disease complications, limitation and acute problems [45–47]. As chronic diseases are strongly linked with physical health and QOL [24], this increasing trend is more detrimental to the lower-income group [25]. This is because the lower-income group is more vulnerable to financial hardships as their income is sufficient for basic needs but not protecting them from risky scenarios such as unforeseen medical costs and other out-of-pocket expenditures [48].

Besides that, the odds of having problems with mobility, self-care and usual activities is significantly associated with unemployment. Although the total HRQOL index score was not significant when adjusted with other factors, the unemployed exhibit lower HRQOL similar to other studies that adjust for gender and socioeconomic status [2, 45, 49]. Unemployment leads to lower economic output causing stress and unhappiness, which leads to lower QOL [50]. Adjacent to unemployment findings, studies have found that lower educational levels reported more HRQOL problems [26, 32, 36] while in others, no association was found [18, 20]. Studies showed that higher education is associated with better health status among older individuals [37, 51]. In our study, findings showed some association, particularly when compared between primary and secondary level education. Therefore, approaches such as social, health care, and legal systems are imperative to protect the health and welfare of these groups [52].

A strong sampling method and large sample size allow a strong representation of HRQOL among low-income households. Conversely, a low response from other ethnic groups based on the initial DOSM sampling frame reduces generalisability among the entire ethnically diverse Malaysian population and therefore should be interpreted with caution, particularly among the non-Malays. In addition, the use of EQ-5D is associated with shortcomings such as having a larger ceiling effect. This reflects the conceptualisation of the EQ-5D instrument which focuses on limitations in function and symptoms and does not include positive aspects of health such as wellbeing and motivation or energy to work or engage with activities [53]. Besides that, self-reporting of medical illnesses during the survey were not fully defined or medically diagnosed. Finally, the duration of the data collection period varied, and thus changes in the QOL may have dropped off with the extension of time due to factors such as rising COVID-19 cases which led to reduced economic output.

Nonetheless, the results of this study have provided indicative information to policymakers and researchers alike of HRQOL profile among low-income Malaysians. Lower income older individuals particularly among females, with lower education and with co-morbidities exhibit lower overall HRQOL and thus should be prioritised moving forward. Local initiatives such as PeKa B40, mySalam and household living aid (BSH) should be continuously improved and disseminate among the disadvantaged group. By providing opportunities to age actively through financial aid, voluntary activities, community engagement, and improving health and financial literacies, policymakers and health practitioners can mobilise effort to reduce health inequity among all Malaysians.

Conclusion

Older individuals within lower-income households exhibit lower HRQOL compared to younger people. Therefore, enhancing QOL of lower-income older communities requires the combined effort of individual and policy-making levels. The approach to elevating individual QOL can be achieved through voluntary activities, community engagement, and intervention programmes to include disengaged individuals in local activities. Integrating health promotion and financial literacy in these activities is essential for expanding health and financial security and funnelling funds more efficiently to improve QOL. The policymakers should utilise a comprehensive approach via the active ageing concept at all levels to improve the lives of many disadvantaged Malaysians.

Supporting information

S1 Table. EQ-5D questionnaire in Malay.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Characteristics of study sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(90.2KB, docx)}

S1 Appendix. Dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(381.2KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the participants that participated in the survey and enumerators that engage the community and collected the data.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education via the Long Term Research Grant (LRGS) awarded to the Malaysia Research University Network (MRUN) with the grant code of LRGS/1/2016/UKM/02/1/2 (LGRS MRUN/F1/01/2019). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG. Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2007;45:1171–1179. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181354828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Med Care. 2005;43:1078–1086. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Khaje-Bishak Y, Payahoo L, Pourghasem B, Asghari Jafarabadi M: Assessing the quality of life in elderly people and related factors in Tabriz, Iran. J Caring Sci 2014;3:257–263. doi: 10.5681/jcs.2014.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2021: Monitoring Health for the SDGs. Geneva; 2021. [Google Scholar]
5.WHO. WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. World Heal Organ. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]
6.WHO. Active ageing: A policy framework. World Heal Organ. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. [Google Scholar]
7.Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Kokko K, Rantakokko M, Törmäkangas T, Saajanaho M. Developing an assessment method of active aging: University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale. J Aging Health. 2019;31:1002–1024. doi: 10.1177/0898264317750449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Choi Y, Park EC, Kim JH, Yoo KB, Choi JW, Lee KS. A change in social activity and depression among Koreans aged 45 years and more: Analysis of the Korean longitudinal study of aging (2006–2010). Int Psychogeriatrics. 2015;27:629–637. doi: 10.1017/S1041610214002439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Hopman WM, Berger C, Joseph L, Zhou W, Prior JC, Towheed T, et al. Prospectively measured 10-year changes in health-related quality of life and comparison with cross-sectional estimates in a population-based cohort of adult women and men. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2707–2721. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0733-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Zack MM, Moriarty DG, Stroup DF, Ford ES, Mokdad AH. Worsening trends in adult health-related quality of life and self-rated health—United States, 1993–2001. Public Health Rep. 2004;119:493–505. doi: 10.1016/j.phr.2004.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A Systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEcon; 2018;36:645–661. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Shafie AA, Hassali MA, Liau SY. A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:593–600. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9774-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, Luo N. Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:153–162. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2027-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, Luo N, Rand-Hendriksen K, Yusof FAM. EQ-5D-5L valuation for the Malaysian population. Md Yusof FA. EQ-5D-5L Valuation for the Malaysian Population. PharmacoEcon. 2018;37: 715–725. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Shafie AA, Hassali MA, Mohamad Yahaya AH. Health-related quality of life among nonprescription medicine customers in Malaysia. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2013;2:107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Yusof FAM, Goh A, Azmi S. Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Value Health. 2012;S85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Shafie AA, Chhabra IK, Hui Yi JW, Mohammed NS, Ibrahim HM. Validity of the Malay EQ-5D-3L in the Malaysian transfusion-dependent thalassemia population. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2021;24:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Wan Puteh SE, Siwar C, Zaidi MAS, Abdul Kadir H. Health related quality of life (HRQOL) among low socioeconomic population in Malaysia. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:551. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6853-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:155–166. doi: 10.1023/a:1008809610703 10703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Ping W, Zheng J, Niu X, Guo C, Zhang J, Yang H, et al. Evaluation of health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10: 621–635. doi: 10.1023/a:1013171831202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Van Dongen JM, Jornada Ben Â, Finch AP, Rossenaar MMM, Biesheuvel-Leliefeld KEM, Apeldoorn AT, et al. Assessing the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. Med Care. 2021;59:82–90. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14:1169–1189. doi: 10.1002/hec.1006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Sosnowski R, Kulpa M, Ziȩtalewicz U, Wolski JK, Nowakowski R, Bakuła R, et al. Basic issues concerning health-related quality of life. Cent Eur J Urol. 2017;70:206–211. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2017.923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.National Institute of Health. National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019 Technical Report—Volume 1. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2019. [Google Scholar]
26.Mielck A, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Health-related quality of life and socioeconomic status: Inequalities among adults with a chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Mielck A, Reitmeir P, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Impact of educational level on health-related quality of life (HRQL): results from Germany based on the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D). Eur J Public Health. 2013;23:45–50. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Williams E, David Buale GB: What are health inequalities? | The King’s Fund; [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2021 Dec 27]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-are-health-inequalities. [Google Scholar]
29.Department of Statistics Malaysia. Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report. Putrajaya; 2019.
30.DOSM. Demographic Statistics First Quarter 2021, Malaysia. In: Source of Malaysia’s Official Statistic [Internet]. 2021 [cited 27 Jul 2021]. Available from: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=430&bul_id=aVlJRDAvbjhWWEhQa1YvSWhsSjF3QT09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09.
31.Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: A history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Heal. 2014;17:70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, et al. Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res. 2010;20:309–320. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Ahmad W, Ibrahim W, Ismail Z. The availability of family support of rural elderly in Malaysia. World Appl Sci J. 2014;30:899–902. [Google Scholar]
35.Ahmad WIW. Population ageing and old age in Malaysia. Ageing in Asia-Pacific. Routledge; 2018. pp. 153–175. [Google Scholar]
36.Huang W, Yu H, Liu C, Liu G, Wu Q, Zhou J, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life of Chinese adults in Heilongjiang using EQ-5D-3L. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:224. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Fujikawa A, Suzue T, Jitsunari F, Hirao T. Evaluation of health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in Takamatsu, Japan. Environ Health Prev Med. 2011;16: 25–35. doi: 10.1007/s12199-010-0162-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Niakas D, Yfantopolous J, Dimitrakaki C, Tountas Y. Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health. 2008;11:1162–1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00356.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Thangiah G, Said MA, Majid HA, Reidpath D, Su TT. Income inequality in quality of life among rural communities in Malaysia: A case for immediate policy consideration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Luthy C, Cedraschi C, Allaz AF, Herrmann FR, Ludwig C. Health status and quality of life: Results from a national survey in a community-dwelling sample of elderly people. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1687–1696. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0894-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374:1196–1208. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61460-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Yusoff SN, Zulkifli Z. Rethinking of old age: The emerging challenge for Malaysia. Int Proc Econ Dev Res. 2013;71:69–73. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Ahmad Bahuri NH, Rizal H, Abdul Majid H, Said MA, Su TT. Development of the Active Ageing Awareness Questionnaire in Malaysia. Healthcare. 2021;9:499. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.National Institute of Health. National Health and Morbidity survey 2015 Technical Report–Volume 1. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2015. [Google Scholar]
45.Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG, Robert SA. Gender differences in health-related quality-of-life are partly explained by sociodemographic and socioeconomic variation between adult men and women in the US: Evidence from four US nationally representative data sets. Qual Life Res. 2010;19: 1115–1124. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9673-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Petersson C, Huus K, Enskär K, Hanberger L, Samulesson U, Åkesson K. Impact of type 1 diabetes on health-related quality of life among 8–18-year-old children. 2016;39:245–255. doi: 10.1080/24694193.2016.1196265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Tan Z, Liang Y, Liu S, Cao W, Tu H, Guo L, et al. Health-related quality of life as measured with EQ-5D among populations with and without specific chronic conditions: A population-based survey in Shaanxi province, China. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Hamid HA, Son GHW, Ismail S. Demarcating households: An integrated income and consumption analysis. Kuala Lumpur; 2019. [Google Scholar]
49.Sørensen J, Davidsen M, Gudex C, Pedersen KM, Brønnum-Hansen H. Danish EQ-5D population norms: 2009;37:467–474. doi: 10.1177/1403494809105286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Norström F, Waenerlund A-K, Lindholm L, Nygren R, Sahlén K-G, Brydsten A. Does unemployment contribute to poorer health-related quality of life among Swedish adults? BMC Public Heal. 2019; 19:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6825-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Mangen M-JJ, Bolkenbaas M, Huijts SM, Werkhoven CH van, Bonten MJM, Wit GA de. Quality of life in community-dwelling Dutch elderly measured by EQ-5D-3L. Heal Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0577-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Sooryanarayana R, Choo W-Y, Hairi NN. A review on the prevalence and measurement of elder abuse in the community. Trauma, Violence, Abus. 2013;14:316–325. doi: 10.1177/1524838013495963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I: Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2021; 30:647–73. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263751.r001

Decision Letter 0

Hoh Boon-Peng

23 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-32914Health-Related Quality of Life of Younger and Older Lower-Income Households in MalaysiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Said,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:The reviewers have raised some valid comments to this manuscript. Authors are invited to carefully address these comments and revise the manuscript accordingly before resubmission.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was funded by the Long-Term Research Grant (LRGS) awarded to the Malaysia Research University Network (MRUN) approved by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia, Grant Number: LGRS MRUN/F1/01/2019.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Mas Ayu Said (corresponding author) received the Long Term Research Grant Scheme (LR004-2019). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

https://mastic.mosti.gov.my/sti-incentive/long-term-research-grant-scheme-lrgs”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article Health-Related Quality of Life of Younger and Older Lower-Income Households in Malaysia is worth publishing, with the following suggestions for clarification, which may stand somewhere between minor and major changes:

In 88 – 90 authors properly stated that: Empirical analyses concerning HRQOL could further extend the understanding of health inequalities. They indicate that low health status groups are faced with a double burden, first by increased levels of health impairments and second by lower levels of HRQOL once health is impaired.

I think here a bit more should be elaborated as this is important for the conclusion too. The WHO and European Commission define healthcare inequalities as the, “differences in health status or in the distribution of health determinants between different population groups. When avoidable, these inequalities are termed health inequities.”

Health inequalities are ultimately about differences in the status of people’s health. Health inequalities are neither inevitable and any gaps are not fixed. Evidence shows that a comprehensive approach to tackling them can make a difference. / https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what are health inequalities/

The causes of health inequalities are often multi factorial and can be both secondary to individual characteristics and external factors (determinants).

The determinants of health inequalities can be broadly categorized as health related and wider (non health/social) determinants of health (see proposed references):

Bulletin of the World Health Organization2018;96:654-659. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.210401

WHO Health Inequality and Inequity World Health Organization, Health Impact Assessment Glossary, Health Inequality and inequity

NHS England definition of inequalities https://www.england.nhs.uk/ltphimenu/definitions-for-health-inequalities/

Addressing health inequalities in the European Union: concepts, action, state of play. European Parliament (2020) ISBN: 978-92-846-6343-9

Social determinants of health: Key concepts World Health Organization (2013) https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/social-determinants-of-health-key-concepts

Health Topics: Social determinants of health WHO https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1

Report of the Working Group on Inequalities in Health,Department of Health and Social Security (UK), 1980 (The ‘Black Report’)

Grove J, ClaesonM, Bryce J, AmouzouA, BoermaT, WaiswaP, et al.; Kirkland Group. Maternal, newborn, and child health and the Sustainable Development Goals –a call for sustained and improved measurement. Lancet. 2015 Oct 17;386(10003):1511–4.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)005176pmid:26530604

Australia’s health 2018: in brief Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018) ISBN:978-1-76054-377-8

More generally, I would acknowledge authors to point out the limitations of the method. EQ-5D is associated with shortcomings, let alone the dichotomization.

I would recommend in a further analysis the use of estimands to embed and adequately accounts for the intercurrent events.

In 159 – typo, approved by the Universiti Malaya Research

Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract (lines 31-32): Please add the age range of the sample in the Methods sub-section

2. Introduction (line 53): Please provide the full term of QOL in its first appearance in the Main Manuscript.

3. Introduction: The explanation about ageing population and health inequalities in Malaysia and what is the importance of looking at quality of life among older people in the country is missing. It is important to understand the context of the study place in this study.

4. Methods: Please provide the age range of the sample. The term “aged less than 60 years old” could be incorrect here as it means that the age group included those age 0-59 years. The age range of the sample thus required to identify the correct age group.

5. Methods: As the sample is designed as a purposive random sampling, what are the reasons of significant difference in the composition of ethnicity between the older and younger group (Table 1)? How will it affect the findings?

6. Methods: The marital status was defined into (1) married; (2) unmarried; and (3) divorced/separated? How about the respondents who are widowed? Where are they in this classification?

7. Methods: There is missing values in the data. For example, the data on education level among younger age group is only available for 1524 from 1571 respondents. The same data is only available for 309 from the total 328 respondents in the older age group. All the missing values should be reported and explanation on how those missing values addressed in this study should be available. The ignorance of missing values will lead to the biases in the analysis.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Borislav Borissov

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Feb 8;17(2):e0263751. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263751.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Jan 2022

Reviewer 1 Comments Changes Revision/Explanation

1. The article Health-Related Quality of Life of Younger and Older Lower-Income Households in Malaysia is worth publishing, with the following suggestions for clarification, which may stand somewhere between minor and major changes:

Thank you for your comments. We have elaborated on the point on health inequalities by stating the following:

Added “The interactions between differing kinds of inequality and its factors are often complex, multidirectional, and inter-related. People can find it more difficult to move away from unhealthy behaviours if they are worse off in a wider range of determinants of health. For example, lower socio-economic groups associated to have a higher prevalence of risky health behaviours, poor diet, limited access to care and less opportunity to lead healthy lives. In addition, disadvantages are concentrated in particular sectors of the population and can be mutually reinforcing [28].” This means that the low-income population living in close proximity together reinforces their accumulative disadvantage such as being in their psychological comfort zone, lower education quality in terms of access to better schools and to afford tuitions, and limited occupational opportunities due to lower education and skill level.

Source: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk /publications/what-are-health-inequalities

2. More generally, I would acknowledge authors to point out the limitations of the method. EQ-5D is associated with shortcomings, let alone the dichotomization. Pg 15, line 326-330

Added: “In addition, the use of EQ-5D is associated with shortcomings such as having a larger ceiling effect. This reflects the conceptualisation of the EQ-5D instrument which focuses on limitations in function and symptoms and does not include positive aspects of health such as wellbeing and motivation or energy to work or engage with activities [53].”

3. I would recommend in a further analysis the use of estimands to embed and adequately accounts for the intercurrent events.

No changes

The authors recognise the value of the suggested analysis but have decided not to expand on the already extensive analysis conducted in this manuscript. We may look further opportunity to write the separate manuscript based on the reviewer’s suggestion

4. In 159 – typo, approved by the Universiti Malaya Research Pg 7, line 179 Amended: Universiti Malaya is the Malay name of the University. Now we change it to the English name “University of Malaya”

Reviewer 2 Comments Changes Revision/Explanation

1. Abstract (lines 31-32): Please add the age range of the sample in the Methods sub-section Pg 2, line 30

Added: “aged 18 years and older”

2. Introduction (line 53): Please provide the full term of QOL in its first appearance in the Main Manuscript. Pg 3, line 50

Added: “quality of life’

Pg 2, line 51-54 and Pg 4, line 90-98

Added: “Older people have higher probability of suffering from multiple health disorders due to experiencing reduced physical and mental functions. Loneliness, impaired sexual activity and chronic metabolic disorders are some of the causes that can result in emotional disturbances which lead to reduced QOL [3].”

Added: The interactions between differing kinds of inequality and its factors are often complex, multidirectional, and inter-related. People can find it more difficult to move away from unhealthy behaviours if they are worse off in a wider range of determinants of health. For example, lower socio-economic groups associated to have a higher prevalence of risky health behaviours, poor diet, limited access to care and less opportunity to lead healthy lives. In addition, disadvantages are concentrated in particular sectors of the population and can be mutually reinforcing [28]. This means that the low-income population living in close proximity together reinforces their accumulative disadvantage such as being in their psychological comfort zone, lower education quality in terms of access to better schools and to afford tuitions, and limited occupational opportunities due to lower education and skill level.

Added: “aged 18 years and older” and added: “aged 18 to 59 years old”

Explained and expanded reasoning: “A low response from other ethnic groups based on the initial DOSM sampling frame reduces generalisability among the entire ethnically diverse Malaysian population and therefore should be interpreted with caution.”

6. Methods: The marital status was defined into (1) married; (2) unmarried; and (3) divorced/separated? How about the respondents who are widowed? Where are they in this classification? No changes

The authors have included the term widowed as part of the definition of separated and thus is included in the (3) divorced/separated category.

Added: “Frequency analysis was carried out to identify missing values and extreme values. Extreme values that were deemed as a case of wrong data entry were deleted and assigned a missing value.” The full dataset will be provided as a supplementary to provide transparency.

Added: Total (percentage), n (%) for each variable description to accurately describe missing data for each variable.

8. Results: The aim of this study is to identify the difference in QOL between two different age groups. The logistic regression thus could be performed separately in those two different age groups to follow up the results from Tables 2 and 3. No changes Originally, the manuscript included the logistic regression (LR) for both age groups to determine their differences as stated in the aims of the study. However, conducting both young and old age groups independently would require a univariate chi-square analysis of each variable to determine its inclusion in the LR analysis, making the table 6 pages long.

In addition, the independent LR analysis would make the analysis too broad in scope to discuss in-depth.

After deliberation, the authors decided to be more concise and articulate with the writeup for LR, focusing more on the relationship of each QOL dimension in regards with economic status of both age group.

9. Discussion: What are the implications of these findings for policy-makers and public health practitioners in Malaysia in addition of as the “indicative information” (lines 293-294)? How will it affect the health and well-being given the ageing population in the country? How big is the B40 group in the country that may affected? Pg 15-16, line 335-341 Added: “Lower income older individuals particularly among females, with lower education and with co-morbidities exhibit lower overall HRQOL and thus should be prioritised moving forward. Local initiatives such as PeKa B40, mySalam and household living aid (BSH) should be continuously improved and disseminate among the disadvantaged group. By providing opportunities to age actively through financial aid, voluntary activities, community engagement, and improving health and financial literacies, policymakers and health practitioners can mobilise effort to reduce health inequity among all Malaysians.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (10.01.22).docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263751.r003

Decision Letter 1

Hoh Boon-Peng

26 Jan 2022

Health-related quality of life of younger and older lower-income households in Malaysia

PONE-D-21-32914R1

Dear Dr. Said,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the revised manuscript and analysis. The author(s) has well responded to each of the comment.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Borislav Borissov

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263751.r004

Acceptance letter

Hoh Boon-Peng

31 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-32914R1

Health-related quality of life of younger and older lower-income households in Malaysia

Dear Dr. Said:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hoh Boon-Peng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. EQ-5D questionnaire in Malay.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Characteristics of study sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(90.2KB, docx)}

S1 Appendix. Dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(381.2KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (10.01.22).docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0263751.ref001] 1.Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG. Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2007;45:1171–1179. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181354828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref002] 2.Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Med Care. 2005;43:1078–1086. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref003] 3.Khaje-Bishak Y, Payahoo L, Pourghasem B, Asghari Jafarabadi M: Assessing the quality of life in elderly people and related factors in Tabriz, Iran. J Caring Sci 2014;3:257–263. doi: 10.5681/jcs.2014.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref004] 4.World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2021: Monitoring Health for the SDGs. Geneva; 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref005] 5.WHO. WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. World Heal Organ. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref006] 6.WHO. Active ageing: A policy framework. World Heal Organ. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref007] 7.Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Kokko K, Rantakokko M, Törmäkangas T, Saajanaho M. Developing an assessment method of active aging: University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale. J Aging Health. 2019;31:1002–1024. doi: 10.1177/0898264317750449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref008] 8.Choi Y, Park EC, Kim JH, Yoo KB, Choi JW, Lee KS. A change in social activity and depression among Koreans aged 45 years and more: Analysis of the Korean longitudinal study of aging (2006–2010). Int Psychogeriatrics. 2015;27:629–637. doi: 10.1017/S1041610214002439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref009] 9.Hopman WM, Berger C, Joseph L, Zhou W, Prior JC, Towheed T, et al. Prospectively measured 10-year changes in health-related quality of life and comparison with cross-sectional estimates in a population-based cohort of adult women and men. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2707–2721. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0733-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref010] 10.Zack MM, Moriarty DG, Stroup DF, Ford ES, Mokdad AH. Worsening trends in adult health-related quality of life and self-rated health—United States, 1993–2001. Public Health Rep. 2004;119:493–505. doi: 10.1016/j.phr.2004.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref011] 11.Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A Systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEcon; 2018;36:645–661. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref012] 12.Shafie AA, Hassali MA, Liau SY. A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:593–600. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9774-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref013] 13.Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, Luo N. Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:153–162. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2027-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref014] 14.Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, Luo N, Rand-Hendriksen K, Yusof FAM. EQ-5D-5L valuation for the Malaysian population. Md Yusof FA. EQ-5D-5L Valuation for the Malaysian Population. PharmacoEcon. 2018;37: 715–725. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref015] 15.Shafie AA, Hassali MA, Mohamad Yahaya AH. Health-related quality of life among nonprescription medicine customers in Malaysia. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2013;2:107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref016] 16.Yusof FAM, Goh A, Azmi S. Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Value Health. 2012;S85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref017] 17.Shafie AA, Chhabra IK, Hui Yi JW, Mohammed NS, Ibrahim HM. Validity of the Malay EQ-5D-3L in the Malaysian transfusion-dependent thalassemia population. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2021;24:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref018] 18.Wan Puteh SE, Siwar C, Zaidi MAS, Abdul Kadir H. Health related quality of life (HRQOL) among low socioeconomic population in Malaysia. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:551. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6853-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref019] 19.Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:155–166. doi: 10.1023/a:1008809610703 10703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref020] 20.Ping W, Zheng J, Niu X, Guo C, Zhang J, Yang H, et al. Evaluation of health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref021] 21.Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10: 621–635. doi: 10.1023/a:1013171831202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref022] 22.Van Dongen JM, Jornada Ben Â, Finch AP, Rossenaar MMM, Biesheuvel-Leliefeld KEM, Apeldoorn AT, et al. Assessing the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. Med Care. 2021;59:82–90. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref023] 23.Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14:1169–1189. doi: 10.1002/hec.1006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref024] 24.Sosnowski R, Kulpa M, Ziȩtalewicz U, Wolski JK, Nowakowski R, Bakuła R, et al. Basic issues concerning health-related quality of life. Cent Eur J Urol. 2017;70:206–211. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2017.923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref025] 25.National Institute of Health. National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019 Technical Report—Volume 1. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref026] 26.Mielck A, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Health-related quality of life and socioeconomic status: Inequalities among adults with a chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref027] 27.Mielck A, Reitmeir P, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Impact of educational level on health-related quality of life (HRQL): results from Germany based on the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D). Eur J Public Health. 2013;23:45–50. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref028] 28.Williams E, David Buale GB: What are health inequalities? | The King’s Fund; [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2021 Dec 27]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-are-health-inequalities. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref029] 29.Department of Statistics Malaysia. Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report. Putrajaya; 2019.

[pone.0263751.ref030] 30.DOSM. Demographic Statistics First Quarter 2021, Malaysia. In: Source of Malaysia’s Official Statistic [Internet]. 2021 [cited 27 Jul 2021]. Available from: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=430&bul_id=aVlJRDAvbjhWWEhQa1YvSWhsSjF3QT09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09.

[pone.0263751.ref031] 31.Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M. From translation to version management: A history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Heal. 2014;17:70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref032] 32.EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref033] 33.Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, et al. Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res. 2010;20:309–320. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref034] 34.Ahmad W, Ibrahim W, Ismail Z. The availability of family support of rural elderly in Malaysia. World Appl Sci J. 2014;30:899–902. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref035] 35.Ahmad WIW. Population ageing and old age in Malaysia. Ageing in Asia-Pacific. Routledge; 2018. pp. 153–175. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref036] 36.Huang W, Yu H, Liu C, Liu G, Wu Q, Zhou J, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life of Chinese adults in Heilongjiang using EQ-5D-3L. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:224. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref037] 37.Fujikawa A, Suzue T, Jitsunari F, Hirao T. Evaluation of health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in Takamatsu, Japan. Environ Health Prev Med. 2011;16: 25–35. doi: 10.1007/s12199-010-0162-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref038] 38.Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Niakas D, Yfantopolous J, Dimitrakaki C, Tountas Y. Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health. 2008;11:1162–1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00356.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref039] 39.Thangiah G, Said MA, Majid HA, Reidpath D, Su TT. Income inequality in quality of life among rural communities in Malaysia: A case for immediate policy consideration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref040] 40.Luthy C, Cedraschi C, Allaz AF, Herrmann FR, Ludwig C. Health status and quality of life: Results from a national survey in a community-dwelling sample of elderly people. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1687–1696. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0894-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref041] 41.Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374:1196–1208. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61460-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref042] 42.Yusoff SN, Zulkifli Z. Rethinking of old age: The emerging challenge for Malaysia. Int Proc Econ Dev Res. 2013;71:69–73. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref043] 43.Ahmad Bahuri NH, Rizal H, Abdul Majid H, Said MA, Su TT. Development of the Active Ageing Awareness Questionnaire in Malaysia. Healthcare. 2021;9:499. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref044] 44.National Institute of Health. National Health and Morbidity survey 2015 Technical Report–Volume 1. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref045] 45.Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG, Robert SA. Gender differences in health-related quality-of-life are partly explained by sociodemographic and socioeconomic variation between adult men and women in the US: Evidence from four US nationally representative data sets. Qual Life Res. 2010;19: 1115–1124. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9673-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref046] 46.Petersson C, Huus K, Enskär K, Hanberger L, Samulesson U, Åkesson K. Impact of type 1 diabetes on health-related quality of life among 8–18-year-old children. 2016;39:245–255. doi: 10.1080/24694193.2016.1196265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref047] 47.Tan Z, Liang Y, Liu S, Cao W, Tu H, Guo L, et al. Health-related quality of life as measured with EQ-5D among populations with and without specific chronic conditions: A population-based survey in Shaanxi province, China. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref048] 48.Hamid HA, Son GHW, Ismail S. Demarcating households: An integrated income and consumption analysis. Kuala Lumpur; 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref049] 49.Sørensen J, Davidsen M, Gudex C, Pedersen KM, Brønnum-Hansen H. Danish EQ-5D population norms: 2009;37:467–474. doi: 10.1177/1403494809105286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref050] 50.Norström F, Waenerlund A-K, Lindholm L, Nygren R, Sahlén K-G, Brydsten A. Does unemployment contribute to poorer health-related quality of life among Swedish adults? BMC Public Heal. 2019; 19:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6825-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref051] 51.Mangen M-JJ, Bolkenbaas M, Huijts SM, Werkhoven CH van, Bonten MJM, Wit GA de. Quality of life in community-dwelling Dutch elderly measured by EQ-5D-3L. Heal Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0577-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref052] 52.Sooryanarayana R, Choo W-Y, Hairi NN. A review on the prevalence and measurement of elder abuse in the community. Trauma, Violence, Abus. 2013;14:316–325. doi: 10.1177/1524838013495963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0263751.ref053] 53.Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I: Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2021; 30:647–73. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Health-related quality of life of younger and older lower-income households in Malaysia

Hussein Rizal

Mas Ayu Said

Hazreen Abdul Majid

Tin Tin Su

Tan Maw Pin

Rozmi Ismail

Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi

Roles

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Methods

Study sample

Study design and duration

Data collection

Quality of life instrument

Data analysis

Table 1. Characteristics of younger and older participants.

Table 3. Percentage of reported problems among younger and older groups in EQ-5D.

Ethical considerations

Results

Characteristics of the participants

HRQOL

Table 2. Characteristics of participants’ EQ-5D index and Visual Analogue (VAS) score.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis

Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression on the relationship of EQ-5D and influencing factors.

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Hoh Boon-Peng

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Hoh Boon-Peng

Roles

Acceptance letter

Hoh Boon-Peng

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases