Top

Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2012

Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation

Auteurs: Matthias Hunger, Carla Sabariego, Björn Stollenwerk, Alarcos Cieza, Reiner Leidl

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2012

Abstract

Purpose

To analyse the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in German stroke survivors undergoing neurological rehabilitation.

Methods

The EQ-5D, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) were completed before (210 subjects) and after (183 subjects) a patient education programme in seven rehabilitation clinics in Bavaria, Germany. A postal follow-up was conducted after 6 months. Acceptance, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D were tested. The SIS subscales were used as external anchors to classify the patients into change groups between the measurements.

Results

The proportion of missing answers ranged from 4.7 to 8.6%. Between 16 and 19% reported no problems in any EQ-5D dimension. At baseline, correlations between EQ-5D index and the SIS subscales ranged from 0.15 (communication) to 0.60 (mobility). Correlations with the EQ VAS were slightly smaller. All scores were reliable in test–retest with intraclass correlations ranging from 0.67 to 0.81. EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were consistently responsive only to improvements in health, showing small- to medium effect sizes (0.27–0.42).

Conclusions

The EQ-5D has shown reasonable validity, reliability and, more limited, responsiveness in stroke patients with mild to moderate limitations of functional status, allowing it to be used in clinical trials in rehabilitation.

vorige artikel Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients

volgende artikel Reliability and validity of PDQ-39: a quality-of-life measure for patients with PD in China

Golomb, B. A., Vickrey, B. G., & Hays, R. D. (2001). A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics, 19(2), 155–185. PubMedCrossRef

Salter, K. L., Moses, M. B., Foley, N. C., & Teasell, R. W. (2008). Health-related quality of life after stroke: What are we measuring? International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 31(2), 111–117. PubMedCrossRef

The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208. CrossRef

Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., & Leidl, R. (2006). Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart, 92(1), 62–67. PubMedCrossRef

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

Dorman, P., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1998). Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke, 29(1), 63–68. PubMedCrossRef

Dorman, P. J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1999). How do scores on the EuroQol relate to scores on the SF-36 after stroke? Stroke, 30(10), 2146–2151. PubMedCrossRef

Dorman, P. J., Waddell, F., Slattery, J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1997). Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke, 28(10), 1876–1882. PubMedCrossRef

van Exel, N. J., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2004). Assessment of post-stroke quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies: The usefulness of the Barthel Index and the EuroQoL-5D. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 427–433. PubMedCrossRef

10.

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

11.

Neubert, S., Sabariego, C., Stier-Jarmer, M., & Cieza, A. (2011). Development of an ICF-based patient education program. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(2), e13–e17. PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hensler, S., Hoidn, S., & Jork, K. (2006). DEGAM practice guideline for stroke. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 82, 404–408. CrossRef

13.

Rollnik, J. D., & Janosch, U. (2010). Current trends in the length of stay in neurological early rehabilitation. Deutsches Ärzteblatt international, 107(16), 286–292. PubMed

14.

Schupp, W. (1995). Concept for a functional status and handicap-adjustment treatment and rehabilitation service chain in neurologic and neurosurgical management in Germany (“phase model”). Der Nervenarzt, 66(12), 907–914. PubMed

15.

Stier-Jarmer, M., Koenig, E., & Stucki, G. (2002). Structures of Early Neurological Rehabilitation (Phase B) in Germany. Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin, 12, 260–271. CrossRef

16.

Leidl, R., & Reitmeir, P. (2011). A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: Development and testing for the german population. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(6), 521–534. PubMedCrossRef

17.

Herrmann, C., Buss, U., & Snaith, R. P. (1995). HADS-D—Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Deutsche Version: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Angst und Depressivität in der somatischen Medizin. Bern: Huber.

18.

Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370. PubMedCrossRef

19.

Aben, I., Verhey, F., Lousberg, R., Lodder, J., & Honig, A. (2002). Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and Hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics, 43(5), 386–393. PubMedCrossRef

20.

Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999). The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30(10), 2131–2140. PubMedCrossRef

21.

Petersen, C., Morfeld, M., & Bullinger, M. (2001). Testing and validation of the German version of the Stroke Impact Scale. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 69(6), 284–290. PubMed

22.

Geyh, S., Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2009). Evaluation of the German translation of the Stroke Impact Scale using Rasch analysis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(6), 978–995. PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hamilton, B., & Granger, C. V. (1987). A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In M. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement (pp. 137–147). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

24.

van der Putten, J. J., Hobart, J. C., Freeman, J. A., & Thompson, A. J. (1999). Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the functional independence measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 66(4), 480–484. CrossRef

25.

Hall, K. M., Hamilton, B. B., Gordon, W. A., & Zasler, N. D. (1993). Characteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: Disability Rating Scale, functional independence measure, and functional assessment measure. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8(2), 60–74. CrossRef

26.

Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Freeman, J. A., Langdon, D. W., McLellan, D. L., Greenwood, R. J., et al. (2001). Evidence-based measurement: Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology, 57(4), 639–644. PubMedCrossRef

27.

Hsueh, I. P., Lin, J. H., Jeng, J. S., & Hsieh, C. L. (2002). Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73(2), 188–190. CrossRef

28.

Duncan, P. W., Reker, D. M., Horner, R. D., Samsa, G. P., Hoenig, H., LaClair, B. J., et al. (2002). Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16(5), 493–505. PubMedCrossRef

29.

Carod-Artal, F. J., Coral, L. F., Trizotto, D. S., & Moreira, C. M. (2008). The stroke impact scale 3.0: Evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke, 39(9), 2477–2484. PubMedCrossRef

30.

Carod-Artal, J., Egido, J. A., Gonzalez, J. L., & Varela de Seijas, E. (2000). Quality of life among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: Experience of a stroke unit. Stroke, 31(12), 2995–3000. PubMedCrossRef

31.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. PubMedCrossRef

32.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. PubMedCrossRef

33.

Konig, H. H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six European countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care, 47(2), 255–261. PubMedCrossRef

34.

Ahlsio, B., Britton, M., Murray, V., & Theorell, T. (1984). Disablement and quality of life after stroke. Stroke, 15(5), 886–890. PubMedCrossRef

35.

Streiner, D. L., & Geoffrey, R. N. (1995). Health Measurement Scales. A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

36.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. PubMedCrossRef

37.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. PubMedCrossRef

38.

Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154. PubMedCrossRef

39.

Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J. J., & von der Schulenburg, J. M. (2005). Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. European Journal of Health Economics, 6(2), 124–130. PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation
Auteurs: Matthias Hunger
Carla Sabariego
Björn Stollenwerk
Alarcos Cieza
Reiner Leidl
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0024-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2012

Impact of diabetes mellitus on quality of life in patients with congestive heart failure

Reliability and validity of PDQ-39: a quality-of-life measure for patients with PD in China

The associations among economic hardship, caregiver psychological distress, disease activity, and health-related quality of life in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

The prevalence of hearing impairment and its burden on the quality of life among adults with Medicare Supplement Insurance

PROMIS® Parent Proxy Report Scales: an item response theory analysis of the parent proxy report item banks

The anemia impact measure (AIM): development and content validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of anemia symptoms and symptom impacts in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy