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 12/2016

25-06-2016

Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data

Auteurs: Aimee Maxwell, Mehmet Özmen, Angelo Iezzi, Jeff Richardson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2016

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

(i) to demonstrate a method which ameliorates the problem of self-selection in the estimation of population norms from web-based data and (ii) to use the method to calculate population norms for two multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments, the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, and population norms for the sub-scales from which they are constructed.

Methods

A web-based survey administered the AQoL-8D MAU instrument (which subsumes the AQoL-6D questionnaire), to members of the public along with the AQoL-4D which has extant population norms. Age, gender and the AQoL-4D were used as post-stratification auxiliary variables to construct weights to ameliorate the potential effects of self-selection associated with web-based surveys. The weights were used to estimate unbiased population norms. Standard errors from the weighted samples were calculated using Jackknife estimation.

Results

For both AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, physical health dimensions decline significantly with age. In contrast, for the majority of the psycho-social dimensions there is a significant U-shaped profile. The net effect is a shallow U-shaped relationship between age and both the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D utilities. This contrasts with the almost monotonic decline in the utilities derived from the AQoL-4D and SF-6D MAU instruments.

Conclusions

Post-stratification weights were used to ameliorate potential bias in the derivation of norms from web-based data for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D. The methods may be used generally to obtain norms when suitable auxiliary variables are available. The inclusion of an enlarged psycho-social component in the two instruments significantly alters the demographic profile.
vorige artikel Psychometric assessment of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Symptom Event Log
volgende artikel The e-MSWS-12: improving the multiple sclerosis walking scale using item response theory
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. New York: Springer.
2.
Bowling, A. (2005). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
3.
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
4.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier Science.CrossRef
6.
EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef
7.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. (1995). A social tariff for EuroQoL: Results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper No 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
8.
Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health utilities index mark II. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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, 873–884.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1989). A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). Journal of Social Medicine, 26, 85–96.
13.
Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kaplan, R., Bush, J., & Berry, C. (1976). Health status: Types of validity and the index of wellbeing. Health Services Research, 11(4), 478–507.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Misajon, R., Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Barton, J., Peacock, S., Iezzi, A., & Keeffe, J. (2005). Vision and quality of life: The development of a utility measure. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 46(11), 4007–4015.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Peacock, S., Sinha, K., Misajon, R., & Keeffe, J. (2012). Utility weights for the vision related Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 7D instrument. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 19(3), 172–182.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., Herrman, H. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for evaluation of interventions affecting mental health. Research Paper 61. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
18.
Richardson, J., Sinah, K., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2395–2404.
19.
Chen, G., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Richardson, J. (2016). Mapping between 6 multi attribute utility instruments. Medical Decsion Making, 36(2), 160–175.CrossRef
20.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A. (2015). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of six utility instruments in seven disease states. Medical Decision Making, Accepted 22 Sep 2015.
21.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments’. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304. doi:10.​1177/​0272989X14567354​
23.
Campbell, J. A., Palmer, A. J., Venn, A., Sharman, M., Otahal, P., Neil, A. (2016). A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. The Patient—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016 1–12. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-015-0157-5
24.
Hawthorne, G., Osborne, R., Sansoni, J., & Taylor, A. (2007). The SF-36 version 2: critical analysis of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 661–673.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Brown, M. A., Adnrews, G., & Whitefor, H. (2009). National survey of mental health and wellbeing: Methods and key findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(7), 594–605.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hawthorne, G., Herrman, H., & Murphy, B. (2006). Interpreting the WHOQoL-Brèf: Preliminary population norms and effect size. Social Indicators Research, 77, 37–59.CrossRef
28.
Cummins, R. A., Knapp, T. M., Woerner, J., Walter, J., Page, K. (2005). The personal Wellbeing of Australians living within federal electoral divisions. Report No: 13.1. Melbourne: Deakin University.
29.
Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2013). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23.CrossRef
31.
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 136–142.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G. (2014). Interim population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 87. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
34.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, B. S. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Gatz, D. F., & Smith, L. (1995). The standard error of a weighted mean concentration-I: Bootstrapping vs other methods. Atmospheric Environment, 29(11), 1185–1193.CrossRef
36.
37.
Hawthorne, G. (2009). Assessing utility where short measures are required: Development of the short assessment of quality of life-8 (AQoL-8) instrument. Value in Health, 12(6), 948–957.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Frijters, P., & Beatton, T. (2012). The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82, 525–542.CrossRef
39.
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. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-015-0926-6.PubMedCentral
40.
Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2016). A comparison of AQoL-4D, AQoL-6D, AQoL-7D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 93. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Metagegevens
Titel
Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data
Auteurs
Aimee Maxwell
Mehmet Özmen
Angelo Iezzi
Jeff Richardson
Publicatiedatum
25-06-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1337-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2016

Quality of Life Research 12/2016 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Measurement of utility in asthma: evidence indicating that generic instruments may miss clinically important changes

OriginalPaper

Stigma as a key determinant of health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease

OriginalPaper

The role of mindfulness in distress and quality of life for men with advanced prostate cancer

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in haemodialysis patients suffering from chronic itch: results from GEHIS (German Epidemiology Haemodialysis Itch Study)

OriginalPaper

Objective drivers of subjective well-being in geriatric inpatients: mobility function and level of education are general predictors of self-evaluated health, feeling of loneliness, and severity of depression symptoms

OriginalPaper

The impact of a belief in life after death on health-state preferences: True difference or artifact?