Skip to main content
Log in

Psychometric and Utility-Based Measures of Health Status of Asthmatic Patients with Different Disease Control Level

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To explore the relationship between asthma control level and healthrelated QOL (HR-QOL), and to understand the role of various psychometric and utility-based methods in studying this relationship.

Methods: Two hundred and twenty-eight consecutive adult outpatients and inpatients at four sites participated in the study. Physicians identified the level of disease control according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classification system. Patients filled in three different HR-QOL questionnaires (EuroQol 5-D [EQ-5D], Short-Form 36-item health survey [SF-36], and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) and a direct time trade-off question. The Short Form- 6D (SF-6D) was used to derive utility values from SF-36 data.

Results: All patient-reported evaluation methods could discriminate between patients with different disease control levels, and both generic and diseasespecific instruments strongly correlated to each other. The magnitude of differences in HR-QOL between groups with different disease control levels was clinically meaningful. All three HR-QOL measures reflected a relationship between disease control level and HR-QOL, but the actual pattern of the relationship depended on the instrument used. Utilities gained from the EQ-5D index, compared with the SF-6D index, had higher values in the patient group with the best disease control and lower values in the patient group with poor disease control.

Conclusions: When choosing an instrument to measure the health status of asthmatic patients in clinical studies, the severity range of the study population should be considered. Researchers might prefer to use the EQ-5D in asthma patients with severe disease or poor disease control and the SF-6D in patients with mild disease or good disease control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table IV
Table V
Fig. 3
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Based on this question, for example, if 15 years of life in perfect health was equivalent to an individual with 20 years of time in his/her current health then the corresponding utility value was calculated to be 15/20, i.e. 0.75.

  2. Kuzniar et al.[26] also reported MIDs for the SGRQ in a Polish validation study among asthmatic patients. 5.3 points on the SGRQ questionnaire has been identified as the threshold value in their study.

References

  1. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Steering Committee. Worldwide variation in prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and atopic eczema: ISAAC. Lancet 1998 Apr 25; 351 (9111): 1225–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. WHO. Bronchial asthma fact sheet. World Health Organization fact sheet N 206 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.who.int [Accessed February 2003]

  3. Burney PGL. Epidemiology of asthma. Allergy 1993; 48: 17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Global Initiative for Asthma. Pocket guide for asthma management and prevention. Bethesda (MD): National Institute of Health, Nov 1998. NIH Pub. No. 96–3659B

  5. Guidelines on the management of asthma. Statement by the British Thoracic Society, the British Paediatric Association, the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians of London, the King’s Fund Centre, the National Asthma Campaign, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the General Practitioners in Asthma Group, the British Assoc. of Accident and Emergency Medicine and the British Paediatric Respiratory Group [published erratum appears in Thorax 1994 Jan; 49 (1): 96 and Thorax 1994 Apr; 49 (4): 386]. Thorax 1993 Mar; 482 Suppl.: Sl-24

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: expert panel report no 2. Bethesda (MD): National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 1997, NIH Publication No. 97–4051

  7. Cockcroft DW, Swystun VA. Asthma control versus asthma severity. J Allergy Clin Imminol 1996; 98 (6 Pt 1): 1016–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, et al. Measuring quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 147: 832–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wijnhoven HA, Kriegsman DM, Hesselink AE, et al. Determinants of different dimensions of disease severity in asthma and COPD: pulmonary function and health-related quality of life. Chest 2001; 119 (4): 1034–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Graham DM, Blaiss MS, Bayliss MS, et al. Impact of changes in asthma severity on health-related quality of life in pediatric and adult asthma patients: results from the asthma outcomes monitoring system. Allergy Asthma Proc 2000; 21 (3): 151–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moy ML, Israel E, Weiss ST, et al. Clinical predictors of healthrelated quality of life depend on asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163 (4): 924–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Huss K, Naumann PL, Mason PJ, et al. Asthma severity, atopic status, allergen exposure and quality of life in elderly persons. Ann Allergy Asthma Imminol 2001; 86 (5): 524–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sawyer MG, Spurrier N, Whaites L, et al. The relationship between asthma severity, family functioning and the healthrelated quality of life of children with asthma. Qual Life Res 2000; 9 (10): 1105–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferrucci L, Baldasseeroni S, Bandielli S, et al. Disease severity and health-related quality of life across different chronic conditions. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48 (11): 1490–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Az asthma bronchiale diagnosztikája és terápiája. A Tódogyógyászati Szakmai Kollégium ajánlása. Med Thorac 2001; 54 (3): 83–94

    Google Scholar 

  16. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality oflife. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion Paper 172. York: York Centre for Health Economics, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ware IE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS SF-36-item short form health survey (SF-36). I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (6): 473–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brazier IE, Usherwood TP, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference- based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol1998; 51 (11): 1115–29

  20. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preferencebased measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (2): 271–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones PW, Quirk FR, Baveystock CM, et al. A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation: the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992; 145: 1321–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 1976; 10 (3): 129–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18 (5): 419–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM. The St George’s respiratory questionnaire. Respir Med 1991; 85 Suppl. B: 25–31

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones PW. Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 2001; 56: 880–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuzniar T, Patkowski J, Liebhart J, et al. Validation of the Polish version of St George’s respiratory questionnaire in patients with bronchial asthma. Pneumonol Alergol Pol 1999; 67 (11–12): 497–503

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ 1996 Apr 20; 312 (7037): 1016–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bousquet J, Knani J, Dhivert H, et al. Quality oflife in asthma. I: internal consistency and validity of the SF-36 questionnaire. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149: 371–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Aas K. Heterogeneity of bronchial asthma. Sub-populations: or different stages of the disease. Allergy 1981 Jan; 36 (1): 3–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. MCilken R, CustersF, VanDoorslaer EKA, et al. Comparison of performance of four instruments in evaluating the effects of salrreterol on asthma quality of life. Eur Respir J 1995; 8: 888–98

    Google Scholar 

  31. Juniper EF, Norman GR, Cox FM, et al. Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life. Eur Respir J 2001; 18: 38–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Paltiel AD, Fuhlbrigge AL, Kitch BT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in adults with mild-to-moderate asthma: results from the asthma policy model. J Allergy Clin Imminol 2001; 108 (1): 39–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of healthrelated quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2 (6): 477–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (2): 151–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Stirling Bryan, John Brazier, Aki Tsuchiya and members of the EuroQol Group for their useful comments on the manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge funding from AstraZeneca and thank Zoltan Vincze for his support in data collection and to Karen Bodnar for proof reading the manuscript. There are no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szende, Á., Svensson, K., Ståhl, E. et al. Psychometric and Utility-Based Measures of Health Status of Asthmatic Patients with Different Disease Control Level. PharmacoEconomics 22, 537–547 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422080-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422080-00005

Keywords

Navigation