Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1936-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Wellbeing measures have been proposed for inclusion in economic evaluation to measure the effect of depression and compensate for shortcomings of existing multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs). The aims of this study were to identify dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and wellbeing that are most affected by depression and to examine the extent to which these are captured by MAUIs.
Data were used from the Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Dimensions of HRQoL (SF-36v2 and AQoL-8D dimensions), capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A), and subjective wellbeing (including PWI, SWLS, and IHS) were identified that distinguished most individuals with depression from a healthy public. The extent to which these dimensions explain the content of five existing MAUIs (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI-3, and SF-6D) was examined using regression analyses. Additionally, the sensitivity of all MAUIs was also assessed towards depression-specific symptoms measured by DASS-21 and K-10.
The sample consisted of 917 individuals with self-reported depression and 1760 healthy subjects. Dimensions that distinguished most individuals with depression from the healthy group (effect size > 2) included AQoL-8D coping, AQoL-8D happiness, AQoL-8D self-worth, ICECAP-A, SF-36 mental health, and SF-36 social functioning. The AQoL-8D was most sensitive to the dimensions above as well as towards the depression-specific measures, the K10, DASS-S, and DASS-D.
This study has shown that psychosocial dimensions of HRQoL have the greatest ability to capture the impact of depression when compared with dimensions of capability wellbeing and SWB. Some MAUIs, such as the AQoL-8D, are sensitive to most distinguishing dimensions of HRQoL and wellbeing, which may obviate the need for supplementary wellbeing instruments.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 KB)11136_2018_1936_MOESM1_ESM.docx
World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA3.0IGO.
Ferrari, A. J., Charlson, F. J., Norman, R. E., Patten, S. B., Freedman, G., Murray, C. J., et al. (2013). Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS Medicine, 10(11), e1001547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001547. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kessler, R. C. (2012). The costs of depression. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2011.11.005. CrossRefPubMed
Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (Vol. 2, pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier. CrossRef
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 (Vol. 27). London: NICE.
Brazier, J., Connell, J., Papaioannou, D., Mukuria, C., Mulhern, B., Peasgood, T., et al. (2014). A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technology Assessment, 18(34), vii–viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18340. CrossRef
Halling Hastrup, L., Nordentoft, M., Hjorthoj, C., & Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2011). Does the EQ-5D measure quality of life in schizophrenia? The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 14(4), 187–196. PubMed
Papaioannou, D., Brazier, J., & Parry, G. (2011). How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value in Health, 14(6), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.006. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14543107. CrossRefPubMed
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 2045–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Dolan, P., Lee, H., & Peasgood, T. (2012). Losing sight of the wood for the trees: Some issues in describing and valuing health, and another possible approach. PharmacoEconomics, 30(11), 1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.2165/11593040-000000000-00000. CrossRefPubMed
Versteegh, M. M., & Brouwer, W. B. (2016). Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.043. CrossRef
Papageorgiou, K., Vermeulen, K. M., Schroevers, M. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P. F., et al. (2015). Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why? Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2565–2575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1018-3. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Pyne, J. M., Fortney, J. C., Tripathi, S., Feeny, D., Ubel, P., & Brazier, J. (2009). How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population. Health Services Research, 44(4), 1406–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00974.x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coast, J., Flynn, T., Sutton, E., Al-Janabi, H., Vosper, J., Lavender, S., et al. (2008). Investigating choice experiments for preferences of older people (ICEPOP): Evaluative spaces in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(Suppl 3), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008024. CrossRef
Hopper, K. (2007). Rethinking social recovery in schizophrenia: What a capabilities approach might offer. Social Science & Medicine, 65(5), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.012. CrossRef
Simon, J., Anand, P., Gray, A., Rugkasa, J., Yeeles, K., & Burns, T. (2013). Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.019. CrossRef
Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205(5), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.136036. CrossRefPubMed
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments. MIC Paper 1 - Background, questions, instruments. Research Paper 76. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13. CrossRefPubMed
Office for National Statistics. (2012). First annual ONS experimental subjective well-being results. London: Office for National Statistics.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Sinha, K., Mihalopoulos, C., Herrman, H., et al. (2009). Data used in the development of the AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) quality of life instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Seiber, W. J., Groessl, E. J., David, K. M., Ganiats, T. G., & Kaplan, R. M. (2008). Quality of Well Being Self Administered (QWB-SA) Scale. User’s Manual. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf.
Ware, J. E. Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2008). SF-36v2® Health survey: Administration guide for clinical trial investigators. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40(5), 532. CrossRef
Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J. E., Xie, F., Goeree, R., Gerstein, H. C., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value Health, 13(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00695.x. CrossRefPubMed
StataCorp (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
Mitchell, P. M., Al-Janabi, H., Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Coast, J. (2015). The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: A multi-country study. PLoS One, 10(12), e0143590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143590. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., Tuovinen, T. K., Honkalampi, K., Antikainen, R., Hintikka, J., Haatainen, K., et al. (2008). Mental health and well-being in a 6-year follow-up of patients with depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43(9), 688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0353-x. CrossRefPubMed
Grochtdreis, T., Brettschneider, C., Hajek, A., Schierz, K., Hoyer, J., & Koenig, H. H. (2016). Mapping the beck depression inventory to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with depressive disorders. Journal of Mental Health Policy Economics, 19(2), 79–89. PubMed
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. CrossRefPubMed
Mulhern, B., & Brazier, J. (2014). Developing version 2 of the SF- 6D: The health state classification system. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Berlin, Germany.
NICE. (2014). Developing NICE guidelines: The manual. London: NICE.
Engel, L., Mortimer, D., Bryan, S., Lear, S. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2017). An investigation of the overlap between the ICECAP-A and five preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. PharmacoEconomics, 35(7), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0491-7. CrossRefPubMed
Keetharuth, A. D., Brazier, J., Connell, J., Bjorner, J. B., Carlton, J., Taylor Buck, E., et al. (2018). Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): A new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties. British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2017.10. CrossRefPubMed
Wailoo, A. J., Hernandez-Alava, M., Manca, A., Mejia, A., Ray, J., Crawford, B., et al. (2017). Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health, 20(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006. CrossRefPubMed
- The impact of depression on health-related quality of life and wellbeing: identifying important dimensions and assessing their inclusion in multi-attribute utility instruments
- Springer International Publishing
- Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649