Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

05-12-2022

What is measured by the composite, single-item pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D-5L? An exploratory analysis

Auteurs: Lidia Engel, David G. T. Whitehurst, Juanita Haagsma, M. F. Janssen, Brendan Mulhern

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose

This study examines the EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort dimension by drawing comparisons with five other pain and discomfort items (pain severity, discomfort severity, pain frequency, discomfort frequency and pain interference) collected in the Australian psychometric study for the EQ Health and Wellbeing instrument.

Methods

Participants, recruited via a market research company, completed an online survey. Methods of analyses included the assessment of descriptive statistics, variation in reporting patterns using chi-square tests and cross-tabulations, correlation analyses, ordered univariate logistic regression, and discriminatory power analyses (Shannon index (H′) and Shannon Evenness index (J′)).

Results

Survey data from 514 participants were used. Compared with EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort, there was a higher proportion of respondents reporting some level of impairment on at least one of the pain severity and discomfort severity items (74% versus 81%). Correlation with EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort was strongest for pain severity (r = 0.83) and weakest for discomfort frequency (r = 0.41); the same inferences were drawn for predictive ability. Adding any additional pain or discomfort items to the EQ-5D-5L increased the absolute informativity (H′) but not the relative informativity (J′). When replacing EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort with separate pain and/or discomfort items – i.e., adding items to a modified ‘EQ-4D-5L’—absolute informativity increased, while relative informativity increased only when pain interference and frequency-related items (independently or in combination) were added.

Conclusion

The EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort dimension captures aspects of pain more than aspects of discomfort. Potential reasons include the absence of descriptors or because pain is mentioned first in the composite item.

Trachsel, L. & Cascella, M. (2020). Pain theory. StatPearls Publishing, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545194/

Raja, S. N., Carr, D. B., Cohen, M., Finnerup, N. B., Flor, H., Gibson, S., Keefe, F. J., Mogil, J. S., Ringkamp, M., Sluka, K. A., Song, X. J., Stevens, B., Sullivan, M. D., Tutelman, P. R., Ushida, T., & Vader, K. (2020). The revised international association for the study of pain definition of pain: Concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain, 161(9), 1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Younger, J., McCue, R., & Mackey, S. (2009). Pain outcomes: A brief review of instruments and techniques. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 13(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-009-0009-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N., (2007) EQ-5D Value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. EuroQol Group Monographs, (vol. 2). Springer

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gudex, C. (2005). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 19–27). Springer. CrossRef

McDonald, R., Mullett, T. L., & Tsuchiya, A. (2020). Understanding the composite dimensions of the EQ-5D: An experimental approach. Social Science and Medicine, 265, 113323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113323 CrossRefPubMed

Rencz, F., & Janssen, M. F. (2022). Analyzing the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression composite domains and the meaning of discomfort in the EQ-5D: A mixed-methods study. Value Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.012 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tsuchiya, A., Bansback, N., Hole, A. R., & Mulhern, B. (2019). Manipulating the 5 dimensions of the EuroQol instrument: The effects on self-reporting actual health and valuing hypothetical health states. Medical Decision Making, 39(4), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19851049 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Whalley, D., Globe, G., Crawford, R., Doward, L., Tafesse, E., Brazier, J., & Price, D. (2018). Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0970-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Yang, F., Jiang, S., He, X. N., Li, H. C., Wu, H. Y., Zhang, T. T., & Wu, J. (2020). Do rural residents in China understand EQ-5D-5L as intended? Evidence from a qualitative study. Pharmacoecon Open, 5(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00212-z CrossRefPubMedCentral

13.

Fox-Rushby, J. (2005). First steps to assessing semantic equivalence of the EuroQol instrument: Results of a questionnaire survey to members of the EuroQol group. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 35–52). Springer. CrossRef

14.

Brazier, J., Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Marten, O., Kreimeier, S., Luo, N., Mulhern, B., Pickard, A. S., Augustovski, F., Greiner, W., Engel, L., Belizan, M., Yang, Z., Monteiro, A., Kuharic, M., Gibbons, L., Ludwig, K., Carlton, J., Connell, J., … Rejon-Parrilla, J. C. (2022). The EQ-HWB: Overview of the development of a measure of health and wellbeing and key results. Value Health, 25(4), 482–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.009 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Carlton, J., Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Connell, J., Brazier, J., Ludwig, K., Marten, O., Kreimeier, S., Engel, L., Belizan, M., Yang, Z., Monteiro, A., Kuharic, M., Luo, N., Mulhern, B., Greiner, W., Pickard, S., & Augustovski, F. (2022). Generation, selection, and face validation of items for a new generic measure of quality of life: The EQ-HWB. Value Health, 25(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.12.007 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Brazier, J., Marten, O., Kreimeier, S., Luo, N., Mulhern, B., Greiner, W., Pickard, A. S., Augustovski, F., Engel, L., Gibbons, L., Yang, Z., Monteiro, A. L., Kuharic, M., Belizan, M., & Bjorner, J. (2022). Developing a new generic health and wellbeing measure: Psychometric survey results for the EQ-HWB. Value Health, 25(4), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1361 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Netten, A., Burge, P., Malley, J., Potoglou, D., Towers, A. M., Brazier, J., Flynn, T., Forder, J., & Wall, B. (2012). Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment, 16(16), 1–166. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16160 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2395–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med, 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Janssen, B., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6 CrossRefPubMedCentral

22.

Spronk, I., Bonsel, G. J., Polinder, S., van Baar, M. E., Janssen, M. F., & Haagsma, J. A. (2021). The added value of extending the EQ-5D-5L with an itching item for the assessment of health-related quality of life of burn patients: An explorative study. Burns, 47(4), 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2020.08.015 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gamst-Klaussen, T., & Lamu, A. N. (2020). Does the EQ-5D usual activities dimension measure what it intends to measure? The relative importance of work, study, housework, family or leisure activities. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2553–2562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02501-w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Spronk, I., Bonsel, G. J., Polinder, S., van Baar, M. E., Janssen, M. F., & Haagsma, J. A. (2020). Exploring the relation between the EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort and pain and itching in a sample of burn patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01394-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

van Dongen-Leunis, A., Redekop, W. K., & Uyl-de Groot, C. A. (2016). Which questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with acute leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health, 19(6), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.008 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hoogendoorn, M., Oppe, M., Boland, M. R. S., Goossens, L. M. A., Stolk, E. A., & Rutten-van Molken, M. (2019). Exploring the impact of adding a respiratory dimension to the EQ-5D-5L. Medical Decision Making, 39(4), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19847983 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Bhardwaj, P., & Yadav, R. (2015). Measuring pain in clinical trials: Pain scales, endpoints, and challenges. Int J Clin Exp Physiol, 2(3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.4103/2348-8093.169965 CrossRef

28.

Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Keefe, F. J., Schwartz, J. E., Stone, A. A., & Broderick, J. E. (2012). Individual differences in the day-to-day variability of pain, fatigue, and well-being in patients with rheumatic disease: Associations with psychological variables. Pain, 153(4), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.01.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Durham, J., Steele, J. G., Breckons, M., Story, W., & Vale, L. (2015). DEEP study: Does EQ-5D-5L measure the impacts of persistent oro-facial pain? Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 42(9), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12296 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Khadka, J., Gothwal, V. K., McAlinden, C., Lamoureux, E. L., & Pesudovs, K. (2012). The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-80 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Bryan, S., Jowett, S., Hardyman, W., and Bentham, P., 2004 Does the EQ-5D ‘"nxiety/depression" item measure anxiety, depression, both or neither?. In 21st Scientific Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Chicago, US

Titel: What is measured by the composite, single-item pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D-5L? An exploratory analysis
Auteurs: Lidia Engel
David G. T. Whitehurst
Juanita Haagsma
M. F. Janssen
Brendan Mulhern
Publicatiedatum: 05-12-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03312-x