Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2009

The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common?

Auteurs: Uwe Konerding, Jörn Moock, Thomas Kohlmann

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2009

Abstract

Purpose

EQ-5D, HUI II and SF-6D often produce very different valuations for the same health state. This paper aims at clarifying to what extent this might be caused by differences between the multi-attribute classification systems belonging to these instruments.

Methods

Subjects were 264 patients of rehabilitation clinics in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (44.3% female; mean age 49.1) who completed the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-36 (the basis of the SF-6D). After scaling with principal component analyses for categorical data, each attribute of each classification system was regressed on the classification systems of the other two instruments, and all attributes together were subjected to ordinary principal component analysis with varimax rotation.

Results

Adjusted multiple R ² for regression analyses ranged from 0.01 to 0.57. The HUI II attribute ‘sensation’ and the SF-6D attribute ‘role limitation’ are virtually unrelated to the remainder. All other attributes of all three instruments can be predicted by each other. EQ-5D and HUI II focus distinctly more on physical functioning than SF-6D.

Conclusion

Although all three classification systems have a lot in common, they differ so much that EQ-5D, HUI II and SF-6D would produce different valuations even if these valuations were determined according to the same principle.

vorige artikel Measuring health-related quality of life in population-based studies of coronary heart disease: comparing six generic indexes and a disease-specific proxy score

volgende artikel Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience

Brooks, R., & The EuroQol Group. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

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

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.PubMedCrossRef

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 375–384.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

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.PubMedCrossRef

Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Incorporated.

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

Michaels, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Campbell, W. B., MacIntyre, J. B., Palfreyman, S. J., & Ratcliffe, J. (2006). Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. The British Journal of Surgery, 93(2), 175–181.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Teng, Y. K., Verburg, R. J., Sont, J. K., van den Hout, W. B., Breedveld, F. C., & van Laar, J. M. (2005). Long-term followup of health status in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis after high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 52(8), 2272–2276.PubMedCrossRef

11.

van den Hout, W. B., de Jong, Z., Munneke, M., Hazes, J. M., Breedveld, F. C., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2005). Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses of a long-term, high-intensity exercise program compared with conventional physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(1), 39–47.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., & Davis, A. C. (2005). A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. International Journal of Audiology, 44(3), 157–163.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., Davis, A. C., & Summerfield, Q. A. (2004). Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3(2), 103–105.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Conner-Spady, B., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2003). Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care, 41(7), 791–801.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Espallargues, M., Czoski-Murray, C. J., Bansback, N. J., Carlton, J., Lewis, G. M., Hughes, L. A., et al. (2005). The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 46(11), 4016–4023.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Feeny, D., Wu, L., & Eng, K. (2004). Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(10), 1659–1670.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Franks, P., Hanmer, J., & Fryback, D. G. (2006). Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Medical Care, 44(5), 478–485.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15(11), 1229–1236.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., et al. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42(11), 1125–1131.PubMedCrossRef

23.

McDonough, C. M., Grove, M. R., Tosteson, T. D., Lurie, J. D., Hilibrand, A. S., & Tosteson, A. N. (2005). Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1321–1332.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2008). Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 485–495.PubMedCrossRef

25.

O’Brien, B. J., Spath, M., Blackhouse, G., Severens, J. L., Dorian, P., & Brazier, J. (2003). A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Economics, 12(11), 975–981.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 207–219.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Siderowf, A., Ravina, B., & Glick, H. A. (2002). Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurology, 59(1), 103–108.PubMed

29.

Stavem, K., Froland, S. S., & Hellum, K. B. (2005). Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Quality of Life Research, 14(4), 971–980.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Szende, A., Svensson, K., Ståhl, E., Mészáros, A., & Berta, G. Y. (2004). Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics, 22(8), 537–547.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Thomas K.J., MacPherson H., Ratcliffe J., Thorpe L., Brazier J., Campbell M., Fitter M., Roman M., Walters S., Nicholl J. P. (2005). Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technology Assessment, 9(32), iii-iv, ix-x, 1–109.

32.

van Stel H.F., Buskens E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 25, 4:20.

33.

Kopec, A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 317–325.PubMedCrossRef

34.

McDonough, C. M., & Tosteson, A. N. (2007). Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(2), 93–106.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system–Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: Why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? European Journal of Health Economics, 6(3), 253–260.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Augustovski, F. A., Lewin, G., Elorrio, E. G., & Rubinstein, A. (2008). The Argentine-Spanish SF-36 Health Survey was successfully validated for local outcome research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(12), 1279–1284.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Beals, J., Welty, T. K., Mitchell, C. M., Rhoades, D. A., Yeh, J. L., Henderson, J. A., et al. (2006). Different factor loadings for SF36: The strong heart study and the national survey of functional health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(2), 208–215.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Fukuhara, S., Bito, S., Green, J., Hsiao, A., & Kurokawa, K. (1998). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1037–1044.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Fukuhara, S., Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Wada, S., & Gandek, B. (1998). Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1045–1053.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Hann, M., & Reeves, D. (2008). The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 413–423.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(1), 46–50.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Lewin-Epstein, N., Sagiv-Schifter, T., Shabtai, E. L., & Shmueli, A. (1998). Validation of the 36-item short-form Health Survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of Israel. Medical Care, 36(9), 1361–1370.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Li, L., Wang, H. M., & Shen, Y. (2003). Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: Translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalisation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(4), 259–263.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Maslić Sersić, D., & Vuletić, G. (2006). Psychometric evaluation and establishing norms of Croatian SF-36 health survey: Framework for subjective health research. Croatian Medical Journal, 47(1), 95–102.PubMed

47.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Mishra, G., & Schofield, M. J. (1998). Norms for the physical and mental health component summary scores of the SF-36 for young, middle-aged and older Australian women. Quality of Life Research, 7(3), 215–220.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Montazeri, A., Goshtasebi, A., Vahdaninia, M., & Gandek, B. (2005). The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 875–882.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Perkins, J. J. (1998). Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Australia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 961–967.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Thumboo, J., Fong, K. Y., Machin, D., Chan, S. P., Leon, K. H., Feng, P. H., et al. (2001). A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 10(2), 175–188.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Ware, J. E., Jr, Gandek, B., Kosinski, M., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Brazier, J., et al. (1998). The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1167–1170.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bech, P., et al. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1159–1165.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Wu, C. H., Lee, K. L., & Yao, G. (2007). Examining the hierarchical factor structure of the SF-36 Taiwan version by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(6), 889–900.PubMed

55.

Essink-Bot, M. L., Krabbe, P. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (1997). An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Medical Care, 35(5), 522–537.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Huang, I. C., Hwang, C. C., Wu, M. Y., Lin, W., Leite, W., & Wu, A. W. (2008). Diabetes-specific or generic measures for health-related quality of life? Evidence from psychometric validation of the D-39 and SF-36. Value in Health, 11(3), 450–461.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Huang, I. C., Wu, A. W., & Frangakis, C. (2006). Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan population. Quality of Life Research, 15(1), 15–24.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Meijer, C. J., Schene, A. H., & Koeter, M. W. (2002). Quality of life in schizophrenia measured by the MOS SF-36 and the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile: A comparison. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 105(4), 293–300.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., & Torrance, G. W. (2002). Health utilities index (HUI) procedures manual. Dundas Ontario Canada: Health Utilities Incorporation.

60.

Brazier J., Walters S. (2003). SF-6D UK Programme. SPSS-Syntax. 24 October 2003.

61.

Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. New York: John Wiley.

62.

Brachinger, H. W., & Ost, F. (1996). Modelle mit latenten Variablen: Faktorenanalyse, Latent-Structure-Analyse und LISREL-Analyse [Models with latent variables: Factor analysis, latent structure analysis and LISREL analysis]. In L. Fahrmeir, A. Hamerle, & G. Tutz (Eds.), Multivariate statistische Verfahren, 2. erweiterte Auflage [Multivariate statistical methods, 2nd extended edition] (pp. 639–766). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

63.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

64.

Munro, B. H. (1997). Regression. In B. H. Munro (Ed.), Statistical methods in health care (pp. 246–286). Philadelphia, New York: Lippincott.

65.

Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., & Cairns, J. (2009). SF-6D versus EQ-5D: Reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. European Journal of Health Economy, 10, 15–23.CrossRef

Titel: The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common?
Auteurs: Uwe Konerding
Jörn Moock
Thomas Kohlmann
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9525-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2009

Gender-related traits, quality of life, and psychological adjustment among women with irritable bowel syndrome

The Maastricht social participation profile: development and clinimetric properties in older adults with a chronic physical illness

SF-36 includes less Parkinson Disease (PD)-targeted content but is more responsive to change than two PD-targeted health-related quality of life measures

The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis

Age and gender differences in health-related quality of life of children and adolescents in Europe: a multilevel analysis

Assessment of the impact of eating disorders on quality of life using the disease-specific, Health-Related Quality of Life for Eating Disorders (HeRQoLED) questionnaire