Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 12/2017

01-08-2017

Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease

Auteurs: Sanjeewa Kularatna, Joshua Byrnes, Yih Kai Chan, Chantal F. Ski, Melinda Carrington, David Thompson, Simon Stewart, Paul A. Scuffham

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2017

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

Purpose

Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are widely used to measure utility weights. This study sought to compare utility weights of two popular MAUIs, the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D, and inform researchers in the selection of generic MAUI for use with cardiovascular (CVD) patients.

Methods

Data were collected in the Young@Heart study, a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led multidisciplinary home-based intervention compared to standard usual care. Participants (n = 598) completed the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-12v2, from which the SF-6D can be constructed, at baseline and at 24-month follow-up. This study examined discrimination, responsiveness, correlation and differences across the two instruments.

Results

Both MAUIs were able to discriminate between the NYHA severity classes and recorded similar changes between the two time points although only SF-6D differences were significant. Correlations between the dimensions of the two MAUIs were low. There were significant differences between the two instruments in mild conditions but they were similar in severe conditions. Substantial ceiling and floor effects were observed.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that the EQ-5D and the SF-6D cover different spaces in health due to their classification systems. Both measures were capable of discriminating between severity groups and responsive to quality of life changes in the follow-up. It is recommended to use the EQ-5D-3L in severe and the SF-6D in mild CVD conditions.
vorige artikel Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population
volgende artikel Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients
Literatuur
1.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE.
2.
3.
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.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
7.
Konerding, U., Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2009). The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common? Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1249–1261.CrossRefPubMed
8.
McDonough, C. M., & Tosteson, A. N. (2007). Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: How choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(2), 93–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kularatna, S., Whitty, J. A., Johnson, N. W., Jayasinghe, R., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). Valuing EQ-5D health states for Sri Lanka. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1785–1793.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Shaw, J., Johnson, J., & Coons, S. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2017). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care, 55(7), e51–e58.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Rowen, D., Young, T., Brazier, J., & Gaugris, S. (2012). Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value in Health, 15(8), 1059–1068.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15(11), 1229–1236.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 2045–2053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Feeny, D., Spritzer, K., Hays, R. D., Liu, H., Ganiats, T. G., Kaplan, R. M., et al. (2012). Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 32(2), 273–286.CrossRef
24.
van Stel, H. F., & Buskens, E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Chan, Y.-K., Stewart, S., Calderone, A., Scuffham, P., Goldstein, S., & Carrington, M. J. (2012). Exploring the potential to remain “Young @ Heart”: Initial findings of a multi-centre, randomised study of nurse-led, home-based intervention in a hybrid health care system. International Journal of Cardiology, 154(1), 52–58.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Carrington, M. J., Chan, Y. K., Calderone, A., Scuffham, P. A., Esterman, A., Goldstein, S., et al. (2013). A multicenter, randomized trial of a nurse-led, home-based intervention for optimal secondary cardiac prevention suggests some benefits for men but not for women: the Young at Heart study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality of Outcomes, 6(4), 379–389.
27.
28.
Antes, G. (2010). The new CONSORT statement. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 340(7748), 666–667.
29.
Ramos-Goñi, J. M., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2011). eq5d: A command to calculate index values for the EQ-5D quality-of-life instrument. Stata Journal, 11(1), 120–125.
30.
31.
Kularatna, S., Whitty, J. A., Johnson, N. W., Jayasinghe, R., & Scuffham, P. A. (2016). A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Teckle, P., Peacock, S., McTaggart-Cowan, H., van der Hoek, K., Chia, S., Melosky, B., et al. (2011). The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Bryan, S., & Lewis, M. (2011). Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), E34–E44.CrossRefPubMed
34.
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(1), 207–219.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Longworth, L., & Bryan, S. (2003). An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Economics, 12(12), 1061–1067.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Tsuchiya, A., Yang, Y., & Young, T. A. (2011). The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure. Social Science and Medicine, 73(2), 245–253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2001). Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE.
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease
Auteurs
Sanjeewa Kularatna
Joshua Byrnes
Yih Kai Chan
Chantal F. Ski
Melinda Carrington
David Thompson
Simon Stewart
Paul A. Scuffham
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1666-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2017

Quality of Life Research 12/2017 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Association between chronic conditions and health-related quality of life: differences by level of urbanization in Peru

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in Spanish informal caregivers: gender differences and support received

OriginalPaper

Perceived discrimination and health-related quality-of-life: gender differences among older African Americans

OriginalPaper

Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population

OriginalPaper

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients

OriginalPaper

Subjective evaluation of psychosocial well-being in children and youths with overweight or obesity: the impact of multidisciplinary obesity treatment