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 6/2017

02-03-2017

Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation

Auteurs: Liam M. Hannan, David G. T. Whitehurst, Stirling Bryan, Jeremy D. Road, Christine F. McDonald, David J. Berlowitz, Mark E. Howard

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2017

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

To explore the influence of descriptive differences in items evaluating mobility on index scores generated from two generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments.

Methods

The study examined cross-sectional data from a postal survey of individuals receiving assisted ventilation in two state/province-wide home mechanical ventilation services, one in British Columbia, Canada and the other in Victoria, Australia. The Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D) and the EQ-5D-5L were included in the data collection. Graphical illustrations, descriptive statistics, and measures of agreement [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots] were examined using index scores derived from both instruments. Analyses were performed on the full sample as well as subgroups defined according to respondents’ self-reported ability to walk.

Results

Of 868 individuals receiving assisted ventilation, 481 (55.4%) completed the questionnaire. Mean index scores were 0.581 (AQoL-8D) and 0.566 (EQ-5D-5L) with ‘moderate’ agreement demonstrated between the two instruments (ICC = 0.642). One hundred fifty-nine (33.1%) reported level 5 (‘I am unable to walk about’) on the EQ-5D-5L Mobility item. The walking status of respondents had a marked influence on the comparability of index scores, with a larger mean difference (0.206) and ‘slight’ agreement (ICC = 0.386) observed when the non-ambulant subgroup was evaluated separately.

Conclusions

This study provides further evidence that between-measure discrepancies between preference-based HRQoL instruments are related in part to the framing of mobility-related items. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the responsiveness of preference-based HRQoL instruments in cohorts that include non-ambulant individuals.
vorige artikel Health literacy and logical inconsistencies in valuations of hypothetical health states: results from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study
volgende artikel The relationship between SF-6D utility scores and lifestyle factors across three life stages: evidence from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Terwee, C. B., Bot SDM, de Boer, M. R., van der Windt D a WM, Knol, D. L., & Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health economics, 8, 41–51.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.5. 2015.
5.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies, 3rd Edition. 2006.
6.
Australian Government: Department of Health and Aging. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. 2009.
7.
Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007) Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Guyatt, G. H., Veldhuyzen Van Zanten, S. J., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: A taxonomy and review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 140, 1441–1448.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology, 41, 1380–1387.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J.-S. (2010). Comparison of five health-related quality-of-life indexes using Item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30, 5–15.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2008). Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Quality of Life Research, 17, 485–495.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35, 276–291.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Whitehurst DGT, Bryan, S., & Lewis, M. (2011). Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Medical Decision Making, 31, E34–E44.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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
16.
Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: Why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? European Journal of Health Economics, 50, 253–260.CrossRef
17.
18.
Fisk, J. D., Brown, M. G., Sketris, I. S., Metz, L. M., Murray, T. J., & Stadnyk, K. J. (2005). A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76, 58–63.CrossRef
19.
Andresen, E. M., Gravitt, G. W., Aydelotte, M. E., & Podgorski, C. A. (1999). Limitations of the SF-36 in a sample of nursing home residents. Age and Ageing, 28, 562–566.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V., Dvorak, M. F. S., & Bryan, S. (2016). Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: A comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 25, 2481–2496.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Suryaprakash, N., Engel, L., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak MFS, et al. (2014). Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Engel, L., & Bryan, S. (2014). Short Form health surveys and related variants in spinal cord injury research†: A systematic review. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 37, 128–138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Hays, R. D., Hahn, H., & Marshall, G. (2002). Use of the SF-36 and other health-related quality of life measures to assess persons with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, S4–S9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient, 7, 85–96.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Goldstein, R. S., Psek J a, & Gort, E. H. (1995). Home mechanical ventilation. Demographics and user perspectives. Chest, 108, 1581–1586.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hannan, L. M., Sahi, H., Road, J. D., McDonald, C. F., Berlowitz, D. J., & Howard, M. E. (2016). Care practices and health-related quality of life for individuals receiving assisted ventilation: A cross-national study. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 13, 894–903.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
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
30.
Richardson, J., Sinha, 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.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
33.
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, 2045–2053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., & Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54, 98–105.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2016) Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Office of Health Economics, London.
36.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Whitehurst DGT, Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health, 17, 570–577.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7, 301–317.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Michel, Y. A., Engel, L., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2016). “When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling”: Interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., & Cairns, J. (2009). SF-6D versus EQ-5D: Reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. European Journal of Health Economics, 10, 15–23.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Whitehurst DGT, & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health, 14, 531–538.CrossRefPubMed
43.
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, 1249–1261.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Asada, Y. (2005). Medical technologies, nonhuman aids, human assistance, and environmental factors in the assessment of health states. Quality of Life Research, 14, 867–874.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Bach, J. R., & Campagnolo, D. (1992). Psychosocial adjustment of post-poliomyelitis ventilator assisted individuals. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 934–939.PubMed
46.
Hung, M.-C., Yan, Y.-H., Fan, P.-S., Lin, M.-S., Chen, C.-R., & Kuo, L.-C., et al. (2010). Measurement of quality of life using EQ-5D in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: Comparison of patients, family caregivers, and nurses. Quality of Life Research, 19, 721–727.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Norman R, Cronin P, & Viney R. (2013) A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 11:287–98.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation
Auteurs
Liam M. Hannan
David G. T. Whitehurst
Stirling Bryan
Jeremy D. Road
Christine F. McDonald
David J. Berlowitz
Mark E. Howard
Publicatiedatum
02-03-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1510-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2017

Quality of Life Research 6/2017 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Differential item functioning of the patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS®) pain interference item bank by language (Spanish versus English)

OriginalPaper

How do Kenyan orphan girls experience less meaningful lives and how much does it matter for ‘health’?

OriginalPaper

The PROMIS fatigue item bank has good measurement properties in patients with fibromyalgia and severe fatigue

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Dutch Outcome Questionnaire-45 in a clinical sample

OriginalPaper

Impact of caregiver activities and social supports on multidimensional caregiver burden: analyses from nationally-representative surveys of cancer patients and their caregivers

OriginalPaper

Physical exercise, vegetable and fruit intake and health-related quality of life in Chinese breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study