Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

15-06-2016

EQ-5D-derived health utilities and minimally important differences for chronic health conditions: 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada

Auteurs: Kate Tsiplova, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Tim Cooke, Feng Xie

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to estimate the EQ-5D-derived health utilities associated with selected chronic conditions (hypertension, heart disease, arthritis, asthma or COPD, cancer, diabetes, chronic back pain, and anxiety or depression) and to estimate minimally important differences (MID) based on the Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada.

Methods

We used a cross-sectional survey of 3765 sick adults in Canada conducted in 2011 by the Commonwealth Fund. Health utilities were calculated for the entire sample and for each of the eight chronic health conditions. An ordinary least squares regression was used to estimate the utility decrement associated with these conditions with and without adjustment for socio-demographic factors. The MIDs were estimated using the anchor- and distribution-based methods.

Results

The adjusted utility decrement varied from 0.028 (95 % confidence interval (CI) −0.049, −0.008) for diabetes to 0.124 (95 % CI −0.142, −0.105) for anxiety or depression. The anchor-based MID for the entire group was 0.044 (95 % CI 0.025, 0.062), and the distribution-based MID for the entire group was 0.091. The condition-specific MIDs using the distribution-based method ranged from 0.089 for cancer to 0.108 for asthma or COPD.

Conclusions

The MID estimated by the distribution-based method was larger than the MID estimated by the anchor-based method, indicating that the choice of method matters. The impact of arthritis, anxiety or depression, and chronic back pain on health utility was substantial, all exceeding or approximating the MID estimated using either anchor- or distribution-based methods.

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

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

Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009.CrossRefPubMed

Brożek, J. L., Guyatt, G. H., & Schünemann, H. J. (2006). How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 69. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W, Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008.CrossRefPubMed

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.CrossRefPubMed

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(1), 81–87. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1.CrossRefPubMed

Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 221–226. doi:10.2307/4034505.CrossRefPubMed

Schünemann, H. J., Puhan, M., Goldstein, R., Jaeschke, R., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005). Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). Copd: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2(1), 81–89. doi:10.1081/COPD-200050651.CrossRefPubMed

Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.CrossRefPubMed

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383. doi:10.4065/77.4.371.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMed

12.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(9), 861–873. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Dolan, P. (2011). Thinking about it: Thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Economics, 20(12), 1407–1416. doi:10.1002/hec.1679.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Le, Q. A., Doctor, J. N., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2013). Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Results from a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 59. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43(7), 736–749.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Agborsangaya, C., Lau, D., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. (2013). Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization in multimorbidity: Results of a cross-sectional survey. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 791–799. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0214-7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chao, Y. S., Ekwaru, J. P., Ohinmaa, A., Griener, G., & Veugelers, P. J. (2014). Vitamin D and health-related quality of life in a community sample of older Canadians. Quality of Life Research, 23(9), 2569–2575. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0696-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Oremus, M., Tarride, J.-E., Clayton, N., & Raina, P. (2014). Health utility scores in alzheimer’s disease: Differences based on calculation with American and Canadian preference weights. Value in Health, 17(1), 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.009.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Schoen, C., Osborn, R., Squires, D., Doty, M., Pierson, R., & Applebaum, S. (2011). New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. Health Affairs, 30(12), 2437–2448.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Harris Interactive Inc. (2011). International health perspectives 2011 survey of sicker adults, methods report.

26.

Rabin, R., & Charro, F. D. (2001). EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. doi:10.3109/07853890109002087.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Anis, A. (2012). Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: Preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE,. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031115.PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J.-E., Xie, F., Goeree, R., Gerstein, H. C., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value in Health, 13(4), 487–494. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00695.x.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lumley, T. (2004). Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software, 9(1), 19. doi:10.18637/jss.v009.i08.

30.

Schisterman, E. F., Cole, S. R., & Platt, R. W. (2009). Overadjustment Bias and Unnecessary Adjustment in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 20(4), 488–495. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a819a1.CrossRef

31.

R Development Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

32.

Lumley, T. (2012). Survey: Analysis of complex survey samples. R Package Version 3.28–2.

33.

Dyer, M. T. D., Goldsmith, K. A., Sharples, L. S., & Buxton, M. J. (2010). A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Janssen, M. F., Lubetkin, E. I., Sekhobo, J. P., & Pickard, A. S. (2011). The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine, 28(4), 395–413. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Pickard, A. S., Wilke, C., Jung, E., Patel, S., Stavem, K., & Lee, T. A. (2008). Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine, 102(4), 519–536. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Supina, A., Johnson, J., Patten, S., Williams, J. A., & Maxwell, C. (2007). The usefulness of the EQ-5D in differentiating among persons with major depressive episode and anxiety. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 749–754. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9159-z.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Whynes, D. K., McCahon, R. A., Ravenscroft, A., Hodgkinson, V., Evley, R., & Hardman, J. G. (2013). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value in Health, 16(1), 124–132. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 344–349. doi:10.3109/07853890109002088.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Szende, A., Janssen, B., & Cabases, J. (Eds.). (2014). Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer Open.

40.

Norman, G. R., Gwadry Sridhar, F., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39(10), 1039–1047.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Soer, R., Reneman, M. F., Speijer, B. L. G. N., Coppes, M. H., & Vroomen, P. C. A. J. (2012). Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. The Spine Journal, 12(11), 1035–1039. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.030.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

König, H.-H., Born, A., Günther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Kvam, A. K., Fayers, P. M., & Wisloff, F. (2011). Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: A comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. European Journal of Haematology, 87(4), 330–337. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2011.01665.x.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: EQ-5D-derived health utilities and minimally important differences for chronic health conditions: 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada
Auteurs: Kate Tsiplova
Eleanor Pullenayegum
Tim Cooke
Feng Xie
Publicatiedatum: 15-06-2016
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/s11136-016-1336-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2016

Associations between daily physical activity, handgrip strength, muscle mass, physical performance and quality of life in prefrail and frail community-dwelling older adults

Association of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D with mental well-being in a population-based, nationally representative sample of German adolescents

Quality-of-life assessment in dementia: the use of DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy total scores

The validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents and a comparison with single-item life satisfaction measures: a preliminary study

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

The e-MSWS-12: improving the multiple sclerosis walking scale using item response theory