Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2008

Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders

Auteurs: Joern Moock, Thomas Kohlmann

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2008

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.

Methods

Patients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.

Results

Mean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.

Conclusions

Results obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.
vorige artikel EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness
Literatuur
1.
Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1997). Methods for economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(1), 13–35.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Salomon, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118–133.PubMed
8.
Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—I: Measurement strategies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 345–354.PubMedCrossRef
9.
The EuroQol Group (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.
10.
Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5d value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Sintonen, H. (1994). The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. I. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Working paper 41. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation.
13.
Sintonen, H. (1995). The 15D measure of health related quality of life: Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Working paper 42. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation.
14.
Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Annals of Medicines, 33(5), 328–336.CrossRef
15.
Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., & Booth, A. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3, 1–164.
16.
Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G., & Furlong, W. J. (1996). Chapter 26: Health Utilities Index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 239–251). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
17.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): Concepts, measurement, properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(54).
18.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kaplan, R. M., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (1997). The Quality of Well-Being Scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychology & Health, 12, 783–791.CrossRef
22.
Sieber, W. J., Groessl, E. J., David, K. D., Ganiats, T. G., & Kaplan, R. M. (2007). Quality of Well-Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) scale. User’s manual; 2004. San Diego: University of California. Retrieved March 5 2007, from http://​medicine.​ucsd.​edu/​fpm/​hoap/​QWB_​SA.​pdf.​
23.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychology Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.CrossRef
24.
Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12(4), 142–158.CrossRef
25.
Rosner, B. (2005). Fundamentals of biostatistics (6th ed.). Boston: Duxbury Press.
26.
Stavem, K., Froland, S. S., & Hellum, K. B. (2005). Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Quality of Life Research, 14, 971–980. .PubMedCrossRef
27.
Conner-Spady, B., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2003). Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care, 41(7), 791–801.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Longworth, L., Bryan, S. (2003). An empirical comparison of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Economics, 12, 1061–1067.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Hahl, J., Hamalainen, H., Sintonen, H., Simell, T., Arinen, S., & Simell, O. (2002). Health-related quality of life in type 1 diabetes without or with symptoms of long-term complications. Quality of Life Research, 11(5), 427–436.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Feeny, D. H., Wu, L., & Eng, K. (2004). Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: Results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(10), 1659–1670.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A, & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14, 207–219.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Grootendorst, P., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2000). Health Utilities Index Mark 3: Evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Medical Care, 38(3), 290–299.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Stavem, K. (1999). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Quality of Life Research, 8(1–2), 45–54.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Marra, C. A., Rashidi, A. A., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Abrahamowicz, M., Esdaile, J. M., Brazier, J. E., Fortin, P. R., & Anis, A. H. (2005). Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients? Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1333–1344.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Hatoum, H. T., Brazier, J. E., & Akhras, K. S. (2004). Comparison of the HUI 3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health, 7(5), 602–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders
Auteurs
Joern Moock
Thomas Kohlmann
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2008
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2008

The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status

Validation of the French version of the colorectal-specific quality-of-life questionnaires EORTC QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C

The effects of exercise training on quality of life in HAART-treated HIV-positive Rwandan subjects with body fat redistribution

EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

Impact of oral health status on oral health-related quality of life in Chinese hospitalised geriatric patients