Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Background Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P < 0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Revision of Public Health, 21, 587–611. CrossRef
The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208. CrossRef
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R. (2002). Health behavior. In J. W Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, M. H. Segall, P. R. Dasen (Eds.), Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed., pp. 423–455). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being : The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 434–450). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Inglehart, R., Klingemann, H. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener, E. M. Suh (Eds.), Well-being and quality of life (pp. 165–183). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., Kind, P. (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decision Making, 21, 7–16. PubMed
Busschbach, J., Weijnen, T., Nieuwenhuizen, M. et al (2003). A comparison of EQ-5D time trade-off values obtained in Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain. In R. G. Brooks, R. Rabin, F. De Charro (Eds.), The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D : A European perspective (1st ed., pp. 143–165). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Construction of conventional tests. In J. C. Nunnally, I. H. Bernstein (Eds.), McGraw-Hill series in psychology (3rd ed. pp. 293–337). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economy, 5, 141–154. CrossRef
Scientific, Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205. CrossRef
Gill, C. J., Griffith, J. L., Jacobson, D., Skinner, S., Gorbach, S. L., Wilson, I. B. (2002). Relationship of HIV viral loads, CD4 counts, and HAART use to health-related quality of life. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes, 30, 485–492. PubMed
Guyatt, GH., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R. (2002). Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 77, 371–383. PubMed
STATCorp. (2001). Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
Franzblau, A. N. (1958). A primer of statistics for non-statisticians. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Shwartz, M, Ash, A. S. (2003). Evaluating risk-adjustment models empirically. In L. I. Iezzoni (Eds.), Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. (3rd ed. pp. 231–273). Chicago, I. L: Health Administration Press.
Hunt, S. M. (1987). Cross-cultural variation in the weighting of health statements: A comparison of English and Swedish valuations. Health Policy, 8, 227–235. CrossRef
Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E Jr., Bentler, P. M. et al (1998). Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA project. international quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1179–1188. PubMedCrossRef
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?
Richard J. Willke
Mark J. Atkinson
William R. Lenderking
Albert W. Wu
- Springer Netherlands