Skip to main content
Top

Open Access 03-07-2024 | Review

Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality of life measures in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs: a systematic review

Auteurs: Norma B. Bulamu, Lemlem G. Gebremichael, Sonia Hines, Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa, Vincent Pearson, Hila A. Dafny, Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza, Alline Beleigoli, Billingsley Kaambwa, Jeroen M. Hendriks, Robyn A. Clark

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research

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
insite
ZOEKEN

Abstract

Purpose

To identify utility-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs (CR) and appraise existing evidence on their measurement properties. Secondly, to link their items to the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) and the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures (ICHOM) domains for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods

Eight databases were searched. The review followed the COSMIN and JBI guidelines for measurement properties systematic reviews and PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines. Non-experimental and observational empirical studies of patients ≥ 18 years of age with CVD undergoing CR and assessed quality of life (QoL) or HRQoL using utility-based PROMs or one accompanied by health state utilities were included.

Results

Nine PROMs were identified with evidence on measurement properties for three measures: the German translations of SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and MacNew heart disease HRQoL questionnaire. There was moderate quality evidence for responsiveness and hypothesis testing of the SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L, and high-quality evidence for responsiveness and hypothesis testing for the MacNew.
All items of SF-12 and EQ-5D were linked to ICF categories, but four items of the MacNew were not classified or defined. All the PROM domains were mapped onto similar constructs from the ICHOM global sets.

Conclusion

Three utility-based PROMs validated in CR were identified: the German versions of the EQ-5D and SF-12 and the MacNew questionnaire. These PROMs are linked to a breadth of ICF categories and all ICHOM global sets. Additional validation studies of PROMs in CR are required.
Opmerkingen

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-024-03657-5.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs as ‘the sum of activity and interventions required to ensure the best possible physical, mental, and social conditions so that patients with chronic or post-acute cardiovascular disease may, by their efforts, preserve or resume their proper place in society and lead an active life’ [1]. Cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs (CR) are recommended for patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease, heart failure, heart valve disease and following cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass graft and following a cardiac event [2]. Cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs aim to delay disease progression or prevent future cardiac events, also referred to as secondary prevention. Secondary prevention includes lifestyle interventions for risk factor management, such as healthy eating, exercise, weight management, and psychosocial support, including monitoring of patient-reported outcomes [3].
Patient-reported outcomes encompass any report on a patient’s condition as reported by the patient [4]. The assessment of patient-reported outcomes is increasingly important as part of routine patient monitoring and as a quality indicator for treatment programs such as CR [3, 5]. In addition, patient-reported outcomes are a key outcome measure in economic evaluation studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of different healthcare interventions. A recent international study on the cost of CR reported average cost per patient ranging from US$731.54 in the United Kingdom to US$1023.99 in Australia and US$5016.60 in the United States of America [6]. Reported healthcare expenditure on cardiovascular diseases is significant, amounting to AU$12.7 billion in Australia [7] and, £7.4 billion in the United Kingdom [8] in 2019/20 and €155 billion in the European Union in 2021 [9]. With increasing CVD prevalence and morbidity globally [10], rising expenditure is certain, and therefore, the efficient allocation of these resources must be considered. The use of PROMs has been on the rise, and there is a growing demand for cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of healthcare programs. This trend aligns with recommendations from influential decision-making bodies, including the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) in Australia, as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK [11, 12]. There are different types of economic evaluations depending on how the outcomes are assessed, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), when assessed using utility-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), also known as preference-based PROMs, is applied in cost-utility analysis [13, 14]. Preference-based or utility-based PROMs are comprised of an HRQoL assessment accompanied by a utility algorithm, which is an indication of the preferences of the different health states generated by completing the assessment. By applying the utility weights, the scores obtained from such PROMs, referred to as utility scores, are used to generate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), the outcome measure in cost-utility analysis [13, 14]. The QALY is a composite measure of the quantity of life accrued by a given intervention (usually calculated using survival analysis) and the utility obtained from that life (utility scores obtained when a utility-based PROM assesses HRQoL). Examples of such PROMs include generic measures such as the Euroqol 5-dimensions measures, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L [15], the Short-Form 6-Dimensions (SF-6D) [16] and disease-specific measures such as the MacNew heart disease HRQoL questionnaire [17].
Cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs are an evidence-based intervention that improves the HRQoL of people with CVD; therefore, HRQoL is a recommended measured outcome in this population. Although several PROMs have been validated in populations with cardiovascular disease and CR programs, there is a limited understanding of the suitability of these PROMs for use in cost-utility analysis studies. It is, therefore, important to identify the most suitable utility-based PROM in this population by assessing the quality of its measurement properties and its relevance to the needs of that specific population. This will facilitate accurate assessment of the cost-utility of CR programs and inform decision making.
With the increasing number of PROMs, guidance on the choice of PROM to be used in a specific population is required by mapping their content to internationally recommended patient-reported outcomes to be assessed in each population. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is a recognized tool for comparing different PROMs [18, 19]. It is a bio-psychosocial framework of health developed by the World Health Organization for measuring health and disability at both individual and population levels across different categories: Body functions, Body structures, Activities and participation, Environmental factors, and Personal factors [20]. In addition, to achieve value-based care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has defined key patient-reported outcomes that are important to and should be monitored in patients affected by different diseases, including CVD [21].
Therefore, this review aimed to identify utility-based PROMs that have been validated for use in a population undergoingCR. To assess their suitability for this population, the PROMs were mapped onto the ICF and the PRO global sets for cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation [22], heart failure [23], heart valve disease and coronary artery disease [24] developed by ICHOM.

Review question(s)

1.
Which utility-based PROMs have been validated for assessing HRQoL in patients attending cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs?
 
2.
How does the content of these measures compare to the ICF framework, and do they address the domains recommended by ICHOM for individuals with CVD?
 

Methods

This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022349395) and conducted following the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of measurement properties [25]. The full protocol for the conduct of this review has been published in detail elsewhere [26], and a summary is presented below.

Inclusion criteria

This review considered studies in adults ≥ 18 years of age eligible for a cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention program, assessing quality of life or HRQoL using a generic, disease-specific, or population-specific utility-based health-related PROM or PROMs accompanied by a scoring algorithm to generate utility scores. Studies were considered for inclusion if they assessed one or more aspects related to the measurement properties, development (to assess content validity), or interpretability of the PROM. Included studies reported on at least one of the following properties: 1) reliability, encompassing internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error, 2) validity, including structural validity, content validity, and construct validity, and 3) responsiveness. The COSMIN definitions for these measurement properties and the tests to assess them are provided in Supplementary Table S1.

Types of studies

Studies of quasi-experimental designs, before and after studies, analytical observational studies, including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case–control studies, and cross-sectional studies were considered.

Search strategy

We employed a three-step search approach, commencing with an initial exploration of MEDLINE (via Ovid) and CINAHL (via EBSCO) to pinpoint relevant articles pertaining to the subject. Subsequently, we extracted text words and index terms from pertinent articles to formulate a comprehensive search strategy for use across other databases. We also examined the reference lists of included studies to identify any relevant supplementary studies. A search strategy was developed based on COSMIN-recommended search filters and previously published research in patients undergoing a cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention program [27] and assessing HRQoL [28]. This search strategy is provided in supplementary data, Table S2. Studies published from database inception to 30th Sept 2022 were included.

Instrument

For the ‘type of instrument’ concept, search filters developed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Group (PROM Group) at the University of Oxford were used to find studies that evaluated PROMs [29].

Measurement properties

The highly sensitive validated search filters developed by the COSMIN initiative in PubMed were used to find measurement property studies. Translation of the original PubMed filter to Ovid MEDLINE by Macquarie University was employed [29].

Databases

The Databases searched were MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), lnformit, PsyclNFO (Ovid) and REHABDATA. Unpublished studies/grey literature was searched in Dissertations and Theses Global, WorldCat, Health, Psychosocial Instruments (HaPI) database, and a list of information sources specific to PROMS collated by the PROMS Group at the University of Oxford (e.g. organizations and research groups; journals; royal colleges and relevant links).

Study selection

Two independent reviewers screened the studies (abstracts and titles and then full texts) in Covidence (NB, LG, CMK, HD, VP, MAPP), and conflicts were resolved by involving a third reviewer (AB, SH, JH and RC). Search results and the study inclusion process were presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [30].

Assessment of methodological quality of the study

The quality of each study was appraised against the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist [31]. Two independent reviewers completed the checklist for methodological quality, and a third reviewer was involved in any disagreements. Studies were rated as ‘very good’, ‘adequate’, ‘doubtful’ or ‘inadequate’ quality. An overall rating was assigned based on the lowest rating for any standards assessed in the checklist [32]. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted regardless of methodological quality, with the impact of including studies with ‘doubtful’ or ‘inadequate’ ratings assessed in the sensitivity analysis. However, studies with ‘inadequate’ evidence on content validity were excluded from further assessment in the review at this stage [31].

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers (NB, LG, SH, HD, VP) extracted the data using modified overview tables and templates from appendices 3–6 of the COSMIN manual [33], and any disagreements were resolved by involving a third reviewer.

Data synthesis

Data on measurement properties for each PROM was synthesised and evaluated by two independent reviewers (NBB, HD, SH) and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer (CMK and BK). The quality of each measurement property reported in the included studies was qualitatively summarised, and a narrative synthesis was provided.
The aggregated results were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties to determine whether the measurement property of the PROM was sufficient (+), insufficient (–), inconsistent ( ±), or indeterminate (?) [33, 34]. A positive rating was assigned if the authors provided sufficient evidence that a particular property has been satisfied, negative if not and indeterminate if no information was provided.
The quality of the evidence generated for each measurement property was also graded as high, moderate, low, or very low using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [31, 33].

Mapping PROM items to ICF categories and domains to ICHOM global sets

To evaluate the content validity of each PROM and its relevance to the needs of patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs, the content/items of the PROMs were mapped onto the ICF using standardized linking rules and their domains were compared to the domains recommended by the ICHOM for cardiovascular disease.

Results

Supplementary Figure S1 illustrates the screening and full-text review to identify the relevant studies for inclusion. 

Study characteristics

This review found ten eligible studies conducted between 2004 and 2019, with the majority (4) undertaken in Germany. All studies were observational except for one randomised control trial [35] (see Table S3). Nine utility-based PROMs were identified; five language translations of the MacNew heart disease HRQoL questionnaire (MacNew): French [36], Portuguese [37], Italian [38], Persian [35] and German [39, 40], two versions of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), English [41] and German [42] and the German translation of EQ-5D-3L [43] and EQ-5D-5L [44]. The SF-36 was the predominant PROM (7 studies) against which these PROMs were compared for convergent validity.
The EQ-5D is a utility-based health status measure with general population value sets from several countries, including Australia [4547]. Although both the SF-12 and MacNew questionnaires are not stand-alone preference-based measures like EQ-5D, utility scores can be obtained from responses to SF-12 using its utility system, the SF-6D [48] and from MacNew using the health state classification system developed by Kularatna et al. [17]. As such, these two PROMs were included in this review.

Assessment of methodological quality

Methodological quality was assessed for each study against the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist [31]. These results are presented in Table 1. Nine studies assessed hypothesis testing for construct validity [3540, 4244], seven studies assessed internal consistency [3540, 44], and responsiveness [35, 37, 3943], six assessed structural validity [3640, 44] while four studies assessed reliability [3537, 43] and only one study assessed criterion validity [43]. None of the studies assessed any of the following properties, PROM development, content validity, cross‐cultural validity, measurement invariance or measurement error.
Table 1
Quality of studies on measurement properties—COSMIN checklist
PROM
Structural validity
Internal consistency
Reliability
Criterion validity
Construct validity
Responsiveness
     
Convergent validity
Known groups validity
Comparison with gold standard
Comparison with other instruments
Comparison between subgroups
Comparison pre and post intervention
English SF-12 [41] Agreement = 1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Very good
French SF-12 [42] Agreement = 1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Very good
NA
Very good
Very good
NA
Very good
German EQ-5D-3L [43] Agreement = 1.0
NA
NA
Very good
Very good
Very good
Adequate
NA
adequate
Adequate
Adequate
German EQ-5D-5L [44] Agreement = 1.0
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Portuguese MacNew [37] Agreement = 1.0
Inadequate
Very good
Adequate
NA
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
NA
Doubtful
French MacNew [36] Agreement = 0.86
Adequate
Very good
Adequate
NA
Very good
Vvery good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Italian MacNew [38] Agreement = 1.0
Adequate
Very good
NA
NA
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Persian MacNew [35] Agreement = 0.73
NA
Inadequate
Very good
NA
Very good
Adequate
NA
NA
NA
Very good
German MacNew [40] Agreement = 0.85
Inadequate
Very good
NA
NA
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
NA
Very good
German MacNew [39] Agreement = 0.84
Very good
Very good
NA
NA
Adequate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Doubtful
NA = Not assessed, Agreement = Cohen’s Kappa
Hypothesis testing for construct validity was very good except in three studies where it was adequate because there was no evidence that the comparator instrument for assessing convergent validity had been validated in the study population [39] and because the statistical method for assessing known groups was not stated but assumed by the reviewers to be appropriate [35, 43]. The internal consistency was very good in six of the seven studies assessing these properties and inadequate in one study [35] where no information was provided about whether other specific internal consistency statistics or IRT-based scores such as standard error were calculated. Responsiveness was very good in four of the seven studies [35, 4042], adequate in one study [43] because the statistical methods were not stated and doubtful in two studies where the intervention was not adequately described [37, 39]. Factor analysis was performed on each sub-scale separately for studies assessing structural validity. Structural validity was very good in two studies that applied confirmatory factor analysis [39, 44], adequate in the two studies that applied exploratory factor analysis [36, 38] and inadequate in two studies where factor analysis was not used [37] and where the sample size was below 5 × the number of items tested [37, 40]. The assessment of reliability was very good in two of the four studies [35, 43] and adequate in two studies because the intra-class correlation was calculated but the model was not described [36, 37].

Data synthesis

Although six studies applied the MacNew, it was administered in five different language translations, and these studies could not be pooled together in a meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis based on the GRADE assessment is therefore provided with details in Table 2. Responsiveness of the English version of the SF-12 (n = 65) was rated as sufficient (+); however, the quality of evidence was low because only one study was identified [41]. Conversely, for the French version of SF-12, the quality of evidence was moderate for responsiveness and hypothesis testing; although only one study because the sample size was large (n = 2441) [42]. Rating for reliability, criterion validity, hypothesis testing and responsiveness of the German version of EQ-5D-3L was sufficient (+), but the quality of evidence was low as only one study (n = 114) was identified [43]. On the other hand, the quality of evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing and responsiveness of the German version of EQ-5D-5L was moderate because of this study’s significantly larger sample size (n = 3225) [44]. For the MacNew, assessment of structural validity, internal consistency and hypothesis testing was rated as sufficient (+); however, the quality of evidence was low for the Portuguese (n = 200) [37], French (n = 323) [36], Italian (n = 298) [38] and Persian (n = 60) [35] translations. The quality of evidence was high for the German version as two studies [39, 40] with significantly high sample size (overall n = 5781) were included. Reliability was rated as sufficient in all except the Italian version [38], where it was not assessed. The quality of this evidence was low except for the German version [39, 40], where it was moderate. Responsiveness was sufficient in the German and Persian versions [35], but the quality of evidence was low for the Persian version because only one study was included.
Table 2
GRADE—Quality of the evidence for measurement properties of the PROMS
  
Structural validity
Internal consistency
Reliability
Criterion validity
Hypothesis testing for construct validity
Responsiveness
English SF-12 [41]
Overall rating
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
 + 
Quality of evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Low
French SF-12 [42]
Overall rating
NA
NA
NA
NA
 + 
 + 
Quality of evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
moderate
Moderate
German EQ-5D-3L [43]
Overall rating
NA
NA
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Quality of evidence
NA
NA
Low
Low
Low
Low
German EQ-5D-5L [44]
Overall rating
 + 
 + 
NA
NA
 + 
NA
Quality of evidence
Moderate
moderate
NA
NA
moderate
NA
Portuguese MacNew [37]
Overall rating
-
 + 
 + 
NA
 + 
 + 
Quality of evidence
Very low
Low
Low
NA
Low
Low
French MacNew [36]
Overall rating
 + 
 + 
 + 
NA
 + 
NA
Quality of evidence
Low
moderate
Low
NA
moderate
NA
Italian MacNew [38]
Overall rating
 + 
 + 
NA
NA
 + 
NA
Quality of evidence
Low
Low
NA
NA
Low
NA
Persian MacNew [35]
Overall rating
NA
 + 
 + 
NA
 + 
 + 
Quality of evidence
NA
Low
Low
NA
Low
Low
German MacNew [39, 40]
Overall rating
 + 
 + 
NA
NA
 + 
 + 
Quality of evidence
Moderate
High
NA
NA
High
High
NA = Not assessed; Agreement between assessors was 1.0 for the overall rating and the quality of the evidence

Mapping PROM items to ICF categories and domains to ICHOM global sets

Nine different PROMs were identified with four core questionnaires: MacNew, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the SF-12. Because both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L only differ in the levels and not the items, this was treated as one measure for the linking and mapping exercise. Linking followed the linking rules for PROMs developed by Cieza et al., 2005 [49].Cieza et al. published the ICF linking results for the SF-12 and therefore, this review reproduces linking results from that original paper (Table S4) [49]. In this review, we linked the MacNew and EQ-5D, reported in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 3
Matching to ICHOM global sets
Item
ICHOM global sets
MacNew
 
1. In general, how much of the time during the last 2 weeks have you felt frustrated, impatient, or angry?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
2. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt worthless or inadequate?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, depression
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
3. In the last 2 weeks, how much of the time did you feel very confident and sure that you could deal with your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
4. In general how much of the time did you feel discouraged or down in the dumps during the last 2 weeks?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, depression
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
5. How much of the time during the past 2 weeks did you feel relaxed and free of tension?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation —HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
6. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt worn out or low in energy?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
7. How happy, satisfied, or pleased have you been with your personal life during the last 2 weeks?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
8. In general, how often during the last 2 weeks have you felt restless, or as if you were having difficulty trying to calm down?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
9. How much shortness of breath have you experienced during the last 2 weeks while doing your day-to-day physical activities?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, dyspnea
Heart valve disease—Quality of life
Heart failure—Symptom control, Vital status
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Symptom severity
10. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt tearful or like crying?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, depression
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
11. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if you are more dependent than you were before your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Independence
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
12. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt that you were unable to do your usual social activities or social activities with your family?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive), Ability to work
13. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if others no longer have the same confidence in you as they did before your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
14. How often during the last 2 weeks have you experienced chest pain while doing your day-to-day activities?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, angina
Heart valve disease—Quality of life
Heart failure—Symptom control
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Symptom severity
15. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt unsure of yourself or lacking in self-confidence?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
16. How often during the last 2 weeks have you been bothered by aching or tired legs?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
17. During the last 2 weeks, how much have you been limited in doing sports or exercise as a result of your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive), Exercise tolerance
18. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt apprehensive or frightened?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
19. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt dizzy or lightheaded?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life
Heart failure—Symptom control
Atrial fibrillation—Symptom severity
20. In general, during the last 2 weeks how much have you been restricted or limited as a result of your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Independence, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
21. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt unsure as to how much exercise or physical activity you should be doing?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure –Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive), Exercise tolerance
22. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if your family is being over-protective toward you?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Independence
Atrial fibrillation—Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
23. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt as if you were a burden to others?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Independence
Atrial fibrillation—Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
24. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt excluded from doing things with other people because of your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Independence
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
25. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt unable to socialize because of your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Independence, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
26. In general, during the last 2 weeks how much have you been physically restricted or limited as a result of your heart problem?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL, Functional status
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Independence, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
27. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt your heart problem limited or interfered with sexual intercourse?
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life, Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Independence, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
EQ-5D
 
Mobility
I have no problems in walking about
I have slight problems
I have moderate problems 
I have severe problems 
I am unable to walk about
Coronary artery disease—Functional status
Heart valve disease—Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure –Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive),
Self-care
I have no problems washing or dressing myself
I have slight problems
I have moderate problems 
I have severe problems 
I am unable to wash or dress myself
Coronary artery disease—Functional status
Heart valve disease—Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Activities of daily living, Independence
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL,
Usual activities (e.g. work, study, housework, family or leisure activities)
I have no problems doing my usual activities
I have slight problems doing 
I have moderate problems doing
I have severe problems doing 
I am unable to do my usual activities
Coronary artery disease—Functional status
Heart valve disease—Impact on mental health and daily activities
Heart failure—Psychosocial health, Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL, Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive), Independence
Pain/discomfort
I have no pain or discomfort
I have slight pain or discomfort
I have moderate pain or discomfort
I have severe pain or discomfort
I have extreme pain or discomfort
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Quality of life
Heart failure—Activities of daily living
Atrial fibrillation—HRQoL
Anxiety/depression
I am not anxious or depressed
I am slightly anxious or depressed
I am moderately anxious
I am severely anxious or depressed
I am extremely anxious 
Coronary artery disease—HRQoL
Heart valve disease—Mental health
Heart failure—Psychosocial health
Atrial fibrillation —Functioning (Physical, Emotional and Cognitive)
Table 4
Linking MacNew questionnaire to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
Rater
ICF category
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4/additional info
1. In general, how much of the time during the last 2 weeks have you felt frustrated, impatient, or angry?
 
Body functions—Mental functions
Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1522 Range of emotion
Mental functions that produce the spectrum of experience of arousal of affect or feelings such as love, hate, anxiousness, sorrow, joy, fear and anger)
2. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt worthless or inadequate?
Rater 1&2
Body function—Mental function
Specific mental functions
b180 experience of self and time functions
b1800 experience of self
Specific mental functions of being aware of one's own identity and one's position in the reality of one's environment around oneself
3. In the last 2 weeks, how much of the time did you feel very confident and sure that you could deal with your heart problem?
Rater 1
Not classified—NC
    
Rater 2
Body function—Mental function
Global mental function
b126 Temperament and personality functions
b1266 Confidence
 
4. In general how much of the time did you feel discouraged or down in the dumps during the last 2 weeks?
Rater 1
Body function—Mental functions
Global mental function
b126 Temperament and personality functions
b1269 Temperament and personality functions, unspecified
Temperament and personality functions, unspecified
Temperament and personality functions
functions of emotional stability
Rater 2
Body function—Mental functions
Global mental function
b126 Temperament and personality functions
b1268 Other specified temperament and personality functions
Discouraged or down in the dump
5. How much of the time during the past 2 weeks did you feel relaxed and free of tension?
Rater 1&2
Body functions—Mental functions
Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1522 Range of emotion
Mental functions that produce the spectrum of experience of arousal of affect or feelings such as love, hate, anxiousness, sorrow, joy, fear and anger
6. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt worn out or low in energy?
Rater 1&2
Body functions—Mental functions
Global Mental function
b130 Energy and drive functions
b1300 Energy level
General mental functions of physiological and psychological mechanisms that cause the individual to move towards satisfying specific needs and general goals in a persistent manner—Mental functions that produce vigour and stamina
7. How happy, satisfied, or pleased have you been with your personal life during the last 2 weeks?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Mental functions—Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1520 Appropriateness of emotion
Mental functions that produce congruence of feeling or affect with the situation, such as happiness at receiving good news
8. In general, how often during the last 2 weeks have you felt restless, or as if you were having difficulty trying to calm down?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Mental functions Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1521 Regulation of emotion
Mental functions that control the experience and display of affect
9. How much shortness of breath have you experienced during the last 2 weeks while doing your day-to-day physical activities?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Functions of the cardiovascular, haematological immunological and respiratory system
b460 Sensations associated with cardiovascular and respiratory functions
 
Sensations such as missing a heartbeat, palpitation and shortness of breath
10. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt tearful or like crying?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Mental functions Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1521 Regulation of emotion
Mental functions that control the experience and display of affect
11. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if you are more dependent than you were before your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Not classified—NC
    
12. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt that you were unable to do your usual social activities or social activities with your family?
Rater 1
Activities and participation
Community, social and civic life
d920—Recreation and leisure
d9205 Socializing
Engaging in informal or casual gatherings with others, such as visiting friends or relatives or meeting informally in public places
Rater 2
Activities and participation—Interpersonal interactions and relationships
General interpersonal interactions
d710 Basic interpersonal interactions
d720 Complex interpersonal interactions
 
Usual social activities, social activities with your family
13. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if others no longer have the same confidence in you as they did before your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Environmental factors
Attitudes
e410 Individual attitudes of immediate family members
e415 Individual attitudes of extended family members
e420 Individual attitudes of friends e425 Individual attitudes of acquaintances, peers, colleagues, neighbours and community members
 
General or specific opinions and beliefs of immediate family members about the person or about other matters (e.g. social, political and economic issues), that influence individual behaviour and actions)
14. How often during the last 2 weeks have you experienced chest pain while doing your day-to-day activities?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Sensory functions and pain—Pain
b280 Sensation of pain
b2801 Pain in body part
b28011 Pain in chest
15. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt unsure of yourself or lacking in self-confidence?
Rater 1&2
Body function—Mental function
Global mental function
b126 Temperament and personality functions
b1266 Confidence
Mental functions that produce a personal disposition that is self-assured, bold and assertive, as contrasted to being timid, insecure and self-effacing
16. How often during the last 2 weeks have you been bothered by aching or tired legs?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Sensory functions and pain—Pain
b280 Sensation of pain
b2801 Pain in body part
b28015 Pain in lower limb
17. During the last 2 weeks, how much have you been limited in doing sports or exercise as a result of your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Functions of the cardiovascular, haematological immunological and respiratory system
b455 Exercise and tolerance functions
b4550 General physical endurance
 
18. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt apprehensive or frightened?
Rater 1&2
Body functions—Mental functions
Specific mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1522 Range of emotion
Mental functions that produce the spectrum of experience of arousal of affect or feelings such as love, hate, anxiousness, sorrow, joy, fear and anger
19. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt dizzy or lightheaded?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Functions of the cardiovascular, haematological immunological and respiratory system—Additional functions and sensations of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems
b469 Additional functions and sensations of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, other specified and unspecified
  
20. In general, during the last 2 weeks how much have you been restricted or limited as a result of your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Not definable—ND
    
21. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt unsure as to how much exercise or physical activity you should be doing?
Rater 1&2
Body functions
Functions of the cardiovascular, haematological immunological and respiratory system
b455 Exercise and tolerance functions
b4550 General physical endurance
 
22. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt as if your family is being over-protective toward you?
Rater 1&2
Environmental factors
Attitudes
e410 Individual attitudes of immediate family members
 
General or specific opinions and beliefs of immediate family members about the person or about other matters (e.g. social, political and economic issues), that influence individual behaviour and actions)
23. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt as if you were a burden to others?
Rater 1&2
Environmental factors
Attitudes
e410 Individual attitudes of immediate family members
e415 Individual attitudes of extended family members
e420 Individual attitudes of friends
e425 Individual attitudes of acquaintances, peers, colleagues, neighbours and community members
 
General or specific opinions and beliefs…about the person or about other matters
24. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt excluded from doing things with other people because of your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Activities and participation
Community, social and civic life
d910—Community life
d9109 Community life unspecified
 
25. How often during the past 2 weeks have you felt unable to socialize because of your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Activities and participation
Community, social and civic life
d920—Recreation and leisure
d9205 Socializing
Engaging in informal or casual gatherings with others, such as visiting friends or relatives or meeting informally in public places
26. In general, during the last 2 weeks how much have you been physically restricted or limited as a result of your heart problem?
Rater 1&2
Not definable—ND
    
27. How often during the last 2 weeks have you felt your heart problem limited or interfered with sexual intercourse?
Rater 1&2
Activities and participation
Interpersonal interactions and relationships—particular interpersonal relationships
d770 intimate relationships
d7702 sexual relationships
 

The 12-item short form health survey (SF-12)

For this measure, results from the linking guidelines paper are reported as the SF-12 was the illustrated example, reproduced in Table S4 [49]. All items of SF-12 were linked to the ICF category activities and participation.
All the SF-12 domains were mapped to ICHOM global sets for coronary artery disease, heart valve disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation as described in see Table 3.
Items of the MacNew were linked to ICF categories except items 3 and 11, which were not classified and items 20 and 26, which were not definable (see Table 4). Thirteen items were linked to the Body Functions category, and chapters mental functions (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 18), functions of the cardiovascular, haematological, immunological, and respiratory system (9, 19, 21), and sensory functions (14, 16). Five items were linked to the category Activities and Participation, chapters community, social and civic life (12, 17, 24, 25) and interpersonal interactions and relationships—particular interpersonal relationships (item 27). Items 13 and 22, were linked to the Environmental Factors category chapter attitudes. The level of agreement between reviewers was 96% on the categories, 93% on the chapters and level 1 with 89% agreement on level 2.
All items of the MacNew were mapped to ICHOM global sets for coronary artery disease, heart valve disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation as demonstrated in see Table 3.

Euroqol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D)

All domains of the EQ-5D were linked to ICF categories (see Table 5). The mobility, self-care and usual activities domains were linked to the Activities and Participation category and chapters mobility, self-care and general tasks and demands, respectively. Pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression domains were linked to the Body Function category, chapters sensory functions and pain and mental functions, respectively. Agreement between reviewers was 90% for the categories, 80% for the chapters and 70% for level 1.
Table 5
Linking EQ-5D to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
Rater
PROM item
ICF category
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Rater 1&2
Mobility
I have no problems in walking about
I have slight problems in walking about
I have moderate problems in walking about
I have severe problems in walking about
I am unable to walk about
Activities and participation
Mobility – Walking and Moving
D450 – Walking
D4500-Walking short distances
D4501-Walking long distances
D4502-Walking on different surfaces
D4503-Walking around obstacles
D4508-Other walking unspecified
D4509-Other specified walking
Rater 1&2
Self-care
I have no problems washing or dressing myself
I have slight problems…
I have moderate problems.
I have severe problems…
I am unable to wash or dress myself
Activities and participation –
Self-care
D510 – washing oneself
D540 – Dressing
D5400-Putting on clothes
D5401-Taking off clothes
D5402-Putting on footwear
D5403-Taking off footwear
D5404-Choosing appropriate clothing
Rater 1
Usual activities (e.g. work, study, housework, family or leisure activities)
Activities and participation –
General tasks and demands -
D230—Carrying out daily routine
D2301 – managing daily routine
 
Work
Activities and participation
General tasks and demands—major life areas-work and employment
d850—remunerative employment
 
 
Study
Activities and participation
General tasks and demands – Education
D835—education life
 
 
Housework
Activities and participation
General tasks and demands—Domestic life
D640—doing housework
 
 
Leisure activities
Activities and participation
General tasks and demands – community social and civic life
d920—recreation and leisure
 
 
Family
Activities and participation—Interpersonal interactions and relationships
General interpersonal interactions
d710 Basic interpersonal interactions
d720 Complex interpersonal interactions
 
Rater 2
 
Activities and participation
General tasks and demands
d210 Undertaking a single task
d2100 Undertaking a simple task
d2101 Undertaking a complex task
d2102 Undertaking a single task independently
d2103 Undertaking a single task in a group
d2108 Undertaking single tasks, other specified
d2109 Undertaking single tasks, unspecified
    
d220 Undertaking multiple tasks
d2200 Carrying out multiple tasks
d2201 Completing multiple tasks
d2202 Undertaking multiple tasks independently
d2203 Undertaking multiple tasks in a group
d2208 Other specified undertaking multiple tasks
d2209 Undertaking multiple tasks, unspecified
    
d230 Carrying out daily routine
d2301 Managing daily routine
d2302 Completing the daily routine
d2303 Managing one's own activity level
d2304 Adapting to changes in daily routine
d2308 Other specified carrying out daily routine
d2309 Carrying out daily routine, unspecified
    
d240 Handling stress and other psychological demands
d2400 Handling responsibilities
d2401 Handling stress
d2402 Handling crisis
d2408 Other specified handling stress and other psychological demands
d2409 Handling stress and other psychological demands, unspecified
   
Education
d835 Education life
 
   
Work and employment
d850 Remunerative employment
 
    
d298 Other specified general tasks and demands
 
    
d299 General tasks and demands, unspecified
 
   
Major life areas—Acquisition of necessities
d610 Acquiring a place to live
d620 Acquisition of goods and services
d629 Acquisition of necessities, other specified and unspecified
 
   
Domestic life
  
Rater 1&2
Pain/Discomfort
I have no pain or discomfort
I have slight pain or discomfort
I have moderate pain or discomfort
I have severe pain or discomfort
I have extreme pain or discomfort
Body functions
Sensory functions and pain—Pain
b280—sensation of pain
 
Rater 1&2
Anxiety/Depression
I am not anxious
I am slightly anxious
I am moderately anxious 
I am severely anxious
I am extremely anxious
Body functions
Mental functions
b152 Emotional functions
b1528 Other specified emotional functions -anxiety/depression
b1522 Range of emotion Mental functions that produce the spectrum of experience of arousal of affect or feelings such as love, hate, anxiousness, sorrow, joy, fear and anger
All domains of the EQ-5D were mapped to ICHOM global sets for coronary artery disease, heart valve disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation (see Table 3).

Discussion

Main findings

Nine utility-based PROMs validated for application in populations undergoing cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs were identified; the German [42] and English [41] translations of SF-12, the German translation of EQ-5D-3L [43] and EQ-5D-5L [44], the Italian [38], Portuguese [37], French [36], Persian [35] and German [39, 40] translations of the MacNew heart disease HRQoL questionnaire.
The quality of evidence for responsiveness and hypothesis testing of the German version of the SF-12 [42] was moderate. The quality of evidence for structural validity, reliability, criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness of the German version of EQ-5D-5L [44] was moderate. The quality of evidence for structural validity, internal consistency and hypothesis testing, reliability and responsiveness of the German version of MacNew [39, 40] was high. The quality of evidence for measurement properties of the following PROMs in a population undergoing cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs was low; English version of SF-12 [41], German translation of EQ-5D-3L [43], Portuguese [37], French [36], Italian [38] and Persian [35] translations of the MacNew heart disease questionnaire.
For all PROMs, linking was predominantly to the activities and participation category of the ICF. All the PROMs domains were matched onto similar constructs from the ICHOM global sets.

Discussion of findings

Several studies have reviewed the literature to identify PROMs used in patients with cardiovascular disease [50, 51], however, this is the first study to specifically consider utility-based PROMs and their measurement properties in patients undergoing a cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention program. Since improvement in HRQoL is expected with CR and cost-effectiveness assessment of models and modes of delivery for CR, such as home-based and web-based CR, is key to inform implementation into practice, it is important to identify the best PROMs for assessing these outcomes. Like Thompson et al., 2016 [50], our review identified the disease-specific MacNew, which has been validated and can be applied across different cardiac populations and both the generic PROMs EQ-5D and SF-12 [50]. Our findings are particularly important to inform the choice of PROMs for application in cost-utility analysis studies, which are increasingly a preferred type of analysis recommended by decision-making bodies like NICE in the UK and PBAC in Australia [11, 12]. A recent review of the national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines from these bodies revealed the prevalence of the generic utility-based PROMs as recommended for use in cost-utility analysis [52]. However, there is potential for additional validated PROMS to be applicable using mapping algorithms to calculate utility scores from responses to non-preference-based disease-specific PROMs. Mapping algorithms to the generic EQ-5D-5L have been developed for some PROMs like the MacNew heart disease HRQoL questionnaire [53, 54], the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) [55], and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) [56], and have been applied in cost-utility studies [55, 57].
Thompson et al., 2016 [50] highlighted the importance of measurement properties, specifically reliability, validity and responsiveness, when choosing a PROM to be used in cardiovascular disease. This review found moderate level evidence for responsiveness and validity of the German versions of the SF-12 [42], EQ-5D-5L [44] and MacNew heart disease questionnaire [39, 40] in a population undergoing a cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention program. These PROMs' reliability (test re-test reliability and internal consistency) is also reported. Responsiveness of the German version of SF-12 in a study assessing predictors of returning to work six months following cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs reported a moderate standardised effect size of 0.53 and 0.51 for the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component scales [58]. The majority (40%) of patients in this study had acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 8% had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The standard response mean reported by Muller-Nordhorn et al., 2004 [42], identified in this review, for patients who had undergone CABG were PCS = 0.63 and MCS = 0.60 while for those undergoing CR following a myocardial infarction/ACS were MCS = − 0.18 and PCS = − 0.05. Due to the disproportionate distribution of CABG patients in that sample [58], the results of these two studies are not comparable for CABG and are dissimilar for myocardial infarction or ACS, highlighting the need for further studies on the responsiveness of this PROM in this population.
In their scoping review and mapping of heart disease-specific PROMs to the ICF, Alguren et al., 2020 [51] identified 34 PROMs whose items were linked to ICF categories of body function, activities and participation and environmental factors. Similarly, in our review, the heart disease specific MacNew was linked to body function (13 items) and activities and participation (5 items). All items of the EQ-5D were linked to similar ICF categories and chapters in this review, like Cieza and Stucki, 2005 [59]. Mobility was linked to b450 (walking); self-care was linked to d510 (washing oneself) and d540 (dressing); usual activities to d2301 (managing daily routine), d850 (remunerative employment), d835 (education life), d640 (doing housework) and d920 (recreation and leisure); pain/discomfort to b280 (sensation of pain) and anxiety/depression to b152 (emotional functions), b1528 (other specified emotional functions) and b1522 (range of emotion).

Limitations

Although extensive searches were conducted, there were insufficient studies to undertake a meta-analysis of the measurement properties. Several language translations of the MacNew were identified, but only one study reported measurement properties of each version except the German version with two studies. This highlights the need for future studies to assess measurement properties of various translations of utility-based PROMs to guide recommendations for inclusion in health economic modelling studies assessing interventions in the different environments of delivery of cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs.
There are several limitations of the COSMIN guidelines noted in the literature regarding reporting of the assessment categories for the measurement properties [60]. This is classified as + sufficient, ? Indeterminate—insufficient and refers to the design and reporting of the validation studies but may be interpreted as the quality of the PROM, which is not the case [60]. Commentators recommend more clarity in the guidelines regarding this rating as it affects the confidence users will have in the given PROM. In addition, completing the risk of bias assessment and the GRADE assessment takes a significant amount of time and requires a more than basic understanding of psychometrics [61].

Implications for practice

The EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and MacNew heart disease questionnaire are linked to ICF categories and ICHOM global sets for CVD, demonstrating their suitability in a population experiencing any form of disability and cardiovascular disease.
This review has highlighted significant gaps in the literature on validation studies for utility-based PROMs in this population and the need for future research to validate these PROMs in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs.

Conclusion

This review has identified three PROMs that can generate health state utility values, validated for cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs: the German version of the generic EQ-5D and SF-12 and the heart disease-specific MacNew HRQoL questionnaire. The PROMs were predominantly linked to ICF categories of Body Function, and Activities and Participation, and matched to all ICHOM global sets. However, with only the German versions of these measures validated in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs, it highlights the need for future larger studies to validate the different language translations of PROMs and provide options for use in this population.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Flinders University librarian Josephine McGill for supporting the development of the search strategy and the members of the Systematic Review Club at the Caring Futures Institute at Flinders University for input. We also acknowledge the Flinders University Caring Futures Institute, Better Care (College of Nursing and Health Sciences) and clinical leaders, Professor Jeroen Hendriks and Professor Robyn Clark, for founding and facilitating the systematic review club.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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

Onze productaanbevelingen

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Literatuur
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization. (1993). Needs and action priorities in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease (p. 6). WHO Regional Office for Europe. World Health Organization. (1993). Needs and action priorities in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease (p. 6). WHO Regional Office for Europe.
2.
go back to reference Piepoli, M. F., Corra, U., Benzer, W., Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Dendale, P., Gaita, D., McGee, H., Mendes, M., Niebauer, J., & Zwisler, A.-D.O. (2010). Prevention and rehabilitation. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, 17(1), 1–17.CrossRef Piepoli, M. F., Corra, U., Benzer, W., Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Dendale, P., Gaita, D., McGee, H., Mendes, M., Niebauer, J., & Zwisler, A.-D.O. (2010). Prevention and rehabilitation. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, 17(1), 1–17.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Piepoli, M. F., Corrà, U., Adamopoulos, S., Benzer, W., Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Cupples, M., Dendale, P., Doherty, P., Gaita, D., Höfer, S., McGee, H., Mendes, M., Niebauer, J., Pogosova, N., Garcia-Porrero, E., Rauch, B., Schmid, J. P., & Giannuzzi, P. (2014). Endorsed by the committee for practice guidelines of the european society of cardiology. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(6), 664–681.PubMedCrossRef Piepoli, M. F., Corrà, U., Adamopoulos, S., Benzer, W., Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Cupples, M., Dendale, P., Doherty, P., Gaita, D., Höfer, S., McGee, H., Mendes, M., Niebauer, J., Pogosova, N., Garcia-Porrero, E., Rauch, B., Schmid, J. P., & Giannuzzi, P. (2014). Endorsed by the committee for practice guidelines of the european society of cardiology. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(6), 664–681.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79.PubMedCentralCrossRef U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79.PubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Abreu, A., Frederix, I., Dendale, P., Janssen, A., Doherty, P., Piepoli, M. F., Völler, H., & Davos, C. H. (2020). Standardization and quality improvement of secondary prevention through cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes in Europe: The avenue towards EAPC accreditation programme: A position statement of the secondary prevention and rehabilitation section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 28(5), 496–509.CrossRef Abreu, A., Frederix, I., Dendale, P., Janssen, A., Doherty, P., Piepoli, M. F., Völler, H., & Davos, C. H. (2020). Standardization and quality improvement of secondary prevention through cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes in Europe: The avenue towards EAPC accreditation programme: A position statement of the secondary prevention and rehabilitation section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 28(5), 496–509.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Moghei, M., Pesah, E., Turk-Adawi, K., Supervia, M., Jimenez, F. L., Schraa, E., & Grace, S. L. (2019). Funding sources and costs to deliver cardiac rehabilitation around the globe: Drivers and barriers. International Journal of Cardiology, 276, 278–286.PubMedCrossRef Moghei, M., Pesah, E., Turk-Adawi, K., Supervia, M., Jimenez, F. L., Schraa, E., & Grace, S. L. (2019). Funding sources and costs to deliver cardiac rehabilitation around the globe: Drivers and barriers. International Journal of Cardiology, 276, 278–286.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Heart, stroke and vascular disease: Australian facts. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Heart, stroke and vascular disease: Australian facts. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
8.
go back to reference Raleigh, V., Jefferies, D., & Wellings, D. (2022). Cardiovascular disease in England: Supporting leaders to take actions. The King’s Fund. Raleigh, V., Jefferies, D., & Wellings, D. (2022). Cardiovascular disease in England: Supporting leaders to take actions. The King’s Fund.
10.
go back to reference Li, Y., Cao, G. Y., Jing, W. Z., Liu, J., & Liu, M. (2023). Global trends and regional differences in incidence and mortality of cardiovascular disease, 1990–2019: Findings from 2019 global burden of disease study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 30(3), 276–286.PubMedCrossRef Li, Y., Cao, G. Y., Jing, W. Z., Liu, J., & Liu, M. (2023). Global trends and regional differences in incidence and mortality of cardiovascular disease, 1990–2019: Findings from 2019 global burden of disease study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 30(3), 276–286.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Australian Government. (2016). Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government. Australian Government. (2016). Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government.
12.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Developing NICE guidelines: The manual. NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Developing NICE guidelines: The manual. NICE.
13.
go back to reference Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Introduction to the mesurement and valuation of health. Oxford University Press. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Introduction to the mesurement and valuation of health. Oxford University Press.
14.
go back to reference Vissapragada, R., Bulamu, N., Karnon, J., Yazbek, R., & Watson, D. I. (2021). Cost-effectiveness in surgery: Concepts of cost-utility analysis explained. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 91(9), 1717–1723.PubMedCrossRef Vissapragada, R., Bulamu, N., Karnon, J., Yazbek, R., & Watson, D. I. (2021). Cost-effectiveness in surgery: Concepts of cost-utility analysis explained. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 91(9), 1717–1723.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kularatna, S., Rowen, D., Mukuria, C., McPhail, S., Chen, G., Mulhern, B., Whitty, J. A., Byrnes, J., Scuffham, P., Atherton, J., Höfer, S., & Parsonage, W. (2022). Development of a preference-based heart disease-specific health state classification system using MacNew heart disease-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 31(1), 257–268.PubMedCrossRef Kularatna, S., Rowen, D., Mukuria, C., McPhail, S., Chen, G., Mulhern, B., Whitty, J. A., Byrnes, J., Scuffham, P., Atherton, J., Höfer, S., & Parsonage, W. (2022). Development of a preference-based heart disease-specific health state classification system using MacNew heart disease-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 31(1), 257–268.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fayed, N., Cieza, A., & Bickenbach, J. E. (2011). Linking health and health-related information to the ICF: A systematic review of the literature from 2001 to 2008. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(21–22), 1941–1951.PubMedCrossRef Fayed, N., Cieza, A., & Bickenbach, J. E. (2011). Linking health and health-related information to the ICF: A systematic review of the literature from 2001 to 2008. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(21–22), 1941–1951.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cieza, A., Bickenbach, J., & Chatterji, S. (2008). The ICF as a conceptual platform to specify and discuss health and health-related concepts. Gesundheitswesen, 70(10), e47-56.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., Bickenbach, J., & Chatterji, S. (2008). The ICF as a conceptual platform to specify and discuss health and health-related concepts. Gesundheitswesen, 70(10), e47-56.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Seligman, W. H., Das-Gupta, Z., Jobi-Odeneye, A. O., Arbelo, E., Banerjee, A., Bollmann, A., Caffrey-Armstrong, B., Cehic, D. A., Corbalan, R., Collins, M., Dandamudi, G., Dorairaj, P., Fay, M., Van Gelder, I. C., Goto, S., Granger, C. B., Gyorgy, B., Healey, J. S., Hendriks, J. M., … Camm, A. J. (2020). Development of an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) atrial fibrillation working group. European Heart Journal, 41(10), 1132–1140.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Seligman, W. H., Das-Gupta, Z., Jobi-Odeneye, A. O., Arbelo, E., Banerjee, A., Bollmann, A., Caffrey-Armstrong, B., Cehic, D. A., Corbalan, R., Collins, M., Dandamudi, G., Dorairaj, P., Fay, M., Van Gelder, I. C., Goto, S., Granger, C. B., Gyorgy, B., Healey, J. S., Hendriks, J. M., … Camm, A. J. (2020). Development of an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) atrial fibrillation working group. European Heart Journal, 41(10), 1132–1140.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Burns, D. J. P., Arora, J., Okunade, O., Beltrame, J. F., Bernardez-Pereira, S., Crespo-Leiro, M. G., Filippatos, G. S., Hardman, S., Hoes, A. W., Hutchison, S., Jessup, M., Kinsella, T., Knapton, M., Lam, C. S. P., Masoudi, F. A., McIntyre, H., Mindham, R., Morgan, L., Otterspoor, L., … McDonagh, T. A. (2020). International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM): Standardized patient-centered outcomes measurement set for heart failure patients. JACC. Heart Failure., 8, 212–222.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Burns, D. J. P., Arora, J., Okunade, O., Beltrame, J. F., Bernardez-Pereira, S., Crespo-Leiro, M. G., Filippatos, G. S., Hardman, S., Hoes, A. W., Hutchison, S., Jessup, M., Kinsella, T., Knapton, M., Lam, C. S. P., Masoudi, F. A., McIntyre, H., Mindham, R., Morgan, L., Otterspoor, L., … McDonagh, T. A. (2020). International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM): Standardized patient-centered outcomes measurement set for heart failure patients. JACC. Heart Failure., 8, 212–222.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
go back to reference McNamara, R. L., Spatz, E. S., Kelley, T. A., Stowell, C. J., Beltrame, J., Heidenreich, P., Tresserras, R., Jernberg, T., Chua, T., Morgan, L., Panigrahi, B., Ruiz, A. R., Rumsfeld, J. S., Sadwin, L., Schoeberl, M., Shahian, D., Weston, C., Yeh, R., & Lewin, J. (2015). Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: Consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(5), e001767.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef McNamara, R. L., Spatz, E. S., Kelley, T. A., Stowell, C. J., Beltrame, J., Heidenreich, P., Tresserras, R., Jernberg, T., Chua, T., Morgan, L., Panigrahi, B., Ruiz, A. R., Rumsfeld, J. S., Sadwin, L., Schoeberl, M., Shahian, D., Weston, C., Yeh, R., & Lewin, J. (2015). Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: Consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(5), e001767.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Stephenson, M., Riitano, D., Wilson, S., Leonardi-Bee, J., Mabire, C., Cooper, K., Monteiro da Cruz, D., Moreno-Casbas, M. T., & Lapkin, S. (2020). Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. Stephenson, M., Riitano, D., Wilson, S., Leonardi-Bee, J., Mabire, C., Cooper, K., Monteiro da Cruz, D., Moreno-Casbas, M. T., & Lapkin, S. (2020). Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI.
26.
go back to reference Bulamu, N. B., Hines, S., Gebremichael, L. G., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Dafny, H. A., Beleigoli, A., Kaambwa, B., Hendriks, J. M., & Clark, R. A. (2023). Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality of life measures in cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(10), 2082–2091.PubMedCrossRef Bulamu, N. B., Hines, S., Gebremichael, L. G., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Dafny, H. A., Beleigoli, A., Kaambwa, B., Hendriks, J. M., & Clark, R. A. (2023). Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality of life measures in cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(10), 2082–2091.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Gebremichael, L. G., Beleigoli, A., Champion, S., Nesbitt, K., Bulto, L. N., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Pearson, V., Noonan, S., Hendriks, J. M., Hines, S., & Clark, R. A. (2022). Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation programs in improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(12), 2986–2994.PubMedCrossRef Gebremichael, L. G., Beleigoli, A., Champion, S., Nesbitt, K., Bulto, L. N., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Pearson, V., Noonan, S., Hendriks, J. M., Hines, S., & Clark, R. A. (2022). Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation programs in improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(12), 2986–2994.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Bulamu, N., Lines, L., Chen, G., Dalziel, K., Devlin, N., & Ratcliffe, J. (2022). A systematic review of international guidance for self-report and proxy completion of child-specific utility instruments. Value in Health, 25(10), 1791–1804.PubMedCrossRef Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Bulamu, N., Lines, L., Chen, G., Dalziel, K., Devlin, N., & Ratcliffe, J. (2022). A systematic review of international guidance for self-report and proxy completion of child-specific utility instruments. Value in Health, 25(10), 1791–1804.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMedCrossRef Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.PubMedCrossRef Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Rajati, F., Feizi, A., Tavakol, K., Mostafavi, F., Sadeghi, M., & Sharifirad, G. (2016). Comparative evaluation of health-related quality of life questionnaires in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac rehabilitation: A psychometric study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(11), 1953–1962.PubMedCrossRef Rajati, F., Feizi, A., Tavakol, K., Mostafavi, F., Sadeghi, M., & Sharifirad, G. (2016). Comparative evaluation of health-related quality of life questionnaires in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac rehabilitation: A psychometric study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(11), 1953–1962.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Pavy, B., Iliou, M. C., Höfer, S., Vergès-Patois, B., Corone, S., Aeberhard, P., Curnier, D., Henry, J., Ponchon-Weess, A., & Oldridge, N. (2015). Validation of the French version of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, 108(2), 107–117.PubMedCrossRef Pavy, B., Iliou, M. C., Höfer, S., Vergès-Patois, B., Corone, S., Aeberhard, P., Curnier, D., Henry, J., Ponchon-Weess, A., & Oldridge, N. (2015). Validation of the French version of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, 108(2), 107–117.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Leal, A., Paiva, C., Höfer, S., Amado, J., Gomes, L., & Oldridge, N. (2005). Evaluative and discriminative properties of the Portuguese MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2335–2341.PubMedCrossRef Leal, A., Paiva, C., Höfer, S., Amado, J., Gomes, L., & Oldridge, N. (2005). Evaluative and discriminative properties of the Portuguese MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2335–2341.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Fattirolli, F., Marchionni, N., Höfer, S., Giannuzzi, P., Angelino, E., Fioretti, P., Miani, D., & Oldridge, N. (2015). The Italian MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire: A validation study. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 10(3), 359–368.PubMedCrossRef Fattirolli, F., Marchionni, N., Höfer, S., Giannuzzi, P., Angelino, E., Fioretti, P., Miani, D., & Oldridge, N. (2015). The Italian MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire: A validation study. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 10(3), 359–368.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Gramm, L., Farin, E., & Jaeckel, W. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the German version of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(1), 83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gramm, L., Farin, E., & Jaeckel, W. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the German version of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(1), 83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Höfer, S., Schmid, J. P., Frick, M., Benzer, W., Laimer, H., Oldridge, N., & Saner, H. (2008). Psychometric properties of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument in patients with heart failure. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(4), 500–506.PubMedCrossRef Höfer, S., Schmid, J. P., Frick, M., Benzer, W., Laimer, H., Oldridge, N., & Saner, H. (2008). Psychometric properties of the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument in patients with heart failure. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(4), 500–506.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Rubenach, S., Shadbolt, B., McCallum, J., & Nakamura, T. (2002). Assessing health-related quality of life following myocardial infarction: Is the SF-12 useful? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(3), 306–309.PubMedCrossRef Rubenach, S., Shadbolt, B., McCallum, J., & Nakamura, T. (2002). Assessing health-related quality of life following myocardial infarction: Is the SF-12 useful? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(3), 306–309.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Müller-Nordhorn, J., Roll, S., & Willich, S. N. (2004). Comparison of the short form (SF)-12 health status instrument with the SF-36 in patients with coronary heart disease. Heart, 90(5), 523–527.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Müller-Nordhorn, J., Roll, S., & Willich, S. N. (2004). Comparison of the short form (SF)-12 health status instrument with the SF-36 in patients with coronary heart disease. Heart, 90(5), 523–527.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., & Leidl, R. (2006). Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart, 92(1), 62–67.PubMedCrossRef Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., & Leidl, R. (2006). Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart, 92(1), 62–67.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Boczor, S., Daubmann, A., Eisele, M., Blozik, E., & Scherer, M. (2019). Quality of life assessment in patients with heart failure: Validity of the German version of the generic EQ-5D-5LTM. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1464.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Boczor, S., Daubmann, A., Eisele, M., Blozik, E., & Scherer, M. (2019). Quality of life assessment in patients with heart failure: Validity of the German version of the generic EQ-5D-5LTM. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1464.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Lancsar, E., Lorgelly, P., Ratcliffe, J., Street, D., & Viney, R. (2023). The use of a discrete choice experiment including both duration and dead for the development of an EQ-5D-5L value set for Australia. PharmacoEconomics, 41(4), 427–438.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Lancsar, E., Lorgelly, P., Ratcliffe, J., Street, D., & Viney, R. (2023). The use of a discrete choice experiment including both duration and dead for the development of an EQ-5D-5L value set for Australia. PharmacoEconomics, 41(4), 427–438.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
go back to reference McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 133.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 133.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M. T., Cronin, P., Street, D. J., Knox, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M. T., Cronin, P., Street, D. J., Knox, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Thompson, D. R., Ski, C. F., Garside, J., & Astin, F. (2016). A review of health-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measures in cardiovascular nursing. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 15(2), 114–125.PubMedCrossRef Thompson, D. R., Ski, C. F., Garside, J., & Astin, F. (2016). A review of health-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measures in cardiovascular nursing. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 15(2), 114–125.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Algurén, B., Coenen, M., Malm, D., Fridlund, B., Mårtensson, J., & Årestedt, K. (2020). A scoping review and mapping exercise comparing the content of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across heart disease-specific scales. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Algurén, B., Coenen, M., Malm, D., Fridlund, B., Mårtensson, J., & Årestedt, K. (2020). A scoping review and mapping exercise comparing the content of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across heart disease-specific scales. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(8), 1245–1257.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(8), 1245–1257.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Gao, L., Luo, W., Tonmukayakul, U., Moodie, M., & Chen, G. (2021). Mapping MacNew heart disease quality of life questionnaire onto country-specific EQ-5D-5L utility scores: A comparison of traditional regression models with a machine learning technique. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(2), 341–350.PubMedCrossRef Gao, L., Luo, W., Tonmukayakul, U., Moodie, M., & Chen, G. (2021). Mapping MacNew heart disease quality of life questionnaire onto country-specific EQ-5D-5L utility scores: A comparison of traditional regression models with a machine learning technique. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(2), 341–350.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference Chen, G., McKie, J., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. R. (2015). Deriving health utilities from the macnew heart disease quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs, 14(5), 405–415.PubMedCrossRef Chen, G., McKie, J., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. R. (2015). Deriving health utilities from the macnew heart disease quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs, 14(5), 405–415.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Thomas, M., Jones, P. G., Cohen, D. J., Suzanne, A. V., Magnuson, E. A., Wang, K., Thourani, V. H., Fonarow, G. C., Sandhu, A. T., & Spertus, J. A. (2021). Predicting the EQ-5D utilities from the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire in patients with heart failure. European Heart Journal—Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 7(4), 388–396.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Thomas, M., Jones, P. G., Cohen, D. J., Suzanne, A. V., Magnuson, E. A., Wang, K., Thourani, V. H., Fonarow, G. C., Sandhu, A. T., & Spertus, J. A. (2021). Predicting the EQ-5D utilities from the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire in patients with heart failure. European Heart Journal—Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 7(4), 388–396.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Chen, G., & Parsonage, W. (2020). Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 115.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Chen, G., & Parsonage, W. (2020). Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 115.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Taylor, R. S., Sadler, S., Dalal, H. M., Warren, F. C., Jolly, K., Davis, R. C., Doherty, P., Miles, J., Greaves, C., Wingham, J., Hillsdon, M., Abraham, C., Frost, J., Singh, S., Hayward, C., Eyre, V., Paul, K., Lang, C. C., & Smith, K. (2019). The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 26(12), 1252–1261.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Taylor, R. S., Sadler, S., Dalal, H. M., Warren, F. C., Jolly, K., Davis, R. C., Doherty, P., Miles, J., Greaves, C., Wingham, J., Hillsdon, M., Abraham, C., Frost, J., Singh, S., Hayward, C., Eyre, V., Paul, K., Lang, C. C., & Smith, K. (2019). The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 26(12), 1252–1261.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Salzwedel, A., Koran, I., Langheim, E., Schlitt, A., Nothroff, J., Bongarth, C., Wrenger, M., Sehner, S., Reibis, R., Wegscheider, K., & Völler, H. (2020). Patient-reported outcomes predict return to work and health-related quality of life six months after cardiac rehabilitation: Results from a German multi-centre registry (OutCaRe). PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232752.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Salzwedel, A., Koran, I., Langheim, E., Schlitt, A., Nothroff, J., Bongarth, C., Wrenger, M., Sehner, S., Reibis, R., Wegscheider, K., & Völler, H. (2020). Patient-reported outcomes predict return to work and health-related quality of life six months after cardiac rehabilitation: Results from a German multi-centre registry (OutCaRe). PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232752.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1225–1237.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1225–1237.PubMedCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Kwok, E. Y. L., Rosenbaum, P., Thomas-Stonell, N., & Cunningham, B. J. (2021). Strengths and challenges of the COSMIN tools in outcome measures appraisal: A case example for speech-language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(2), 313–329.CrossRef Kwok, E. Y. L., Rosenbaum, P., Thomas-Stonell, N., & Cunningham, B. J. (2021). Strengths and challenges of the COSMIN tools in outcome measures appraisal: A case example for speech-language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(2), 313–329.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference McKenna, S. P., & Heaney, A. (2021). Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: Can we rely on the COSMIN checklists? Journal of Medical Economics, 24(1), 502–511.PubMedCrossRef McKenna, S. P., & Heaney, A. (2021). Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: Can we rely on the COSMIN checklists? Journal of Medical Economics, 24(1), 502–511.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality of life measures in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs: a systematic review
Auteurs
Norma B. Bulamu
Lemlem G. Gebremichael
Sonia Hines
Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa
Vincent Pearson
Hila A. Dafny
Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza
Alline Beleigoli
Billingsley Kaambwa
Jeroen M. Hendriks
Robyn A. Clark
Publicatiedatum
03-07-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03657-5