nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

20.04.2016

Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: a comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury

verfasst von: David G. T. Whitehurst, Nicole Mittmann, Vanessa K. Noonan, Marcel F. Dvorak, Stirling Bryan

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

This study explores variation in health state descriptions and valuations derived from preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in the context of spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods

Individuals living with SCI were invited to complete a web-based, cross-sectional survey. The survey comprised questions regarding demographics, SCI classifications and characteristics, secondary health complications and conditions, quality of life and SCI-specific functioning in activities of daily living. Four preference-based health status classification systems were included; Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension questionnaire (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI) and SF-6D (derived from the SF-36v2). In addition to descriptive comparisons of index scores and item/dimension responses, analyses explored dimension-level correlation and absolute agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). Subgroup analyses examined the influence of individuals’ self-reported ability to walk.

Results

Of 609 invitations, 364 (60 %) individuals completed the survey. Across instruments, convergent validity was seen between pain and mental health dimensions, while sizeable variation pertaining to issues of mobility was observed. Mean index scores were 0.248 (HUI-3), 0.492 (EQ-5D-5L), 0.573 (AQoL-8D) and 0.605 (SF-6D). Agreement ranged from ‘slight’ (HUI-3 and SF-6D; ICC = 0.124) to ‘moderate’ (AQoL-8D and SF-6D; ICC = 0.634). Walking status had a markedly different impact on health state valuations across instruments.

Conclusions

Variation in the way that individuals are able to describe their health state across instruments is not unique to SCI. Further research is necessary to understand the significant differences in index scores and, in particular, the implications of framing mobility-related questions in the context of respondents’ ability to walk.

Vorheriger Artikel Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool

Nächster Artikel Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Neumann, P., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.PubMedCrossRef

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2010 Annual Component surveys. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.

Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute Utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 41–57). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

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

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

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.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

10.

Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 328–336.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224.PubMedCrossRef

13.

The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instruments. Melbourne (Australia): Centre for Health Economics. Accessed August 31, 2015. http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolinstruments.

14.

Kaplan, R. M., Anderson, J. P., & Ganiats, T. G. (1993). The Quality of Well-being Scale: Rationale for a single quality of life index. In S. R. Walker & R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: Key issues in the 1990s (pp. 65–94). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

15.

Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J. (2010). Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Whitehurst, D. G. T., Bryan, S., & Lewis, M. (2011). Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), E34–E44.PubMedCrossRef

17.

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

18.

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.PubMedCrossRef

19.

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

20.

Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health, 14(4), 531–538.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Konerding, U., Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2009). The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: What do they have in common? Quality of Life Research, 18, 1249–1261.PubMedCrossRef

22.

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

23.

Whitehurst, D. G. T., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F. S., & Bryan, S. (2012). A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord, 50(9), 646–654.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Andresen, E. M., Fouts, B. S., Romeis, J. C., & Brownson, C. A. (1999). Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 877–884.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lee, B. B., Simpson, J. M., King, M. T., Haran, M. J., & Marial, O. (2009). The SF-36 walk-wheel: A simple modification of the SF-36 physical domain improves its responsiveness for measuring health status change in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47(1), 50–55.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Engel, L., Bryan, S., Evers, S. M., Dirksen, C. D., Noonan, V. K., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychometric properties of the SF-6D, a preference-based health-related quality of life measure, in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2383–2393.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Craven, C., Hitzig, S. L., & Mittmann, N. (2012). Impact of impairment and secondary health conditions on health preference among Canadians with chronic spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 35(5), 361–370.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient, 7(1), 85–96.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

30.

Seiber WJ, Groessl EJ, David KM, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM (2008) Quality of well being self-administered (QWB-SA) scale user’s manual. San Diego, CA: Health Services Research Center. Accessed August 31, 2015. https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf.

31.

Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2TM health survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric.

32.

Whitehurst, D. G., Suryaprakash, N., Engel, L., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F., et al. (2014). Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 12, 50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

33.

Noreau, L., Noonan, V. K., Cobb, J., Leblond, J., & Dumont, F. S. (2014). Spinal cord injury community survey: A national, comprehensive study to portray the lives of Canadians with spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 20(4), 249–264.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., & Hanmer, J. (2008). Revised SF-6D scoring programmes: A summary of improvements. PRO Newsletter, 40, 14–15.

35.

Perreault, W. D. (1975). Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(4), 544–551.CrossRef

36.

Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study Group. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.PubMedCrossRef

37.

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

38.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–427.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7(3), 301–317.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Hanmer, J., Cherepanov, D., Palta, M., Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Fryback, D. G. (2016). Health condition impacts in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey vary substantially by preference-based health index. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 264–274.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Heintz, E., Wiréhn, A. B., Peebo, B. B., Rosenqvist, U., & Levin, L. Å. (2012). QALY weights for diabetic retinopathy: A comparison of health state valuations with HUI-3, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and TTO. Value Health, 15(3), 475–484.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Joore, M., Brunenberg, D., Nelemans, P., Wouters, E., Kuijpers, P., Honig, A., et al. (2010). The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: Results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health, 13(2), 222–229.PubMedCrossRef

43.

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.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304.PubMedCrossRef

45.

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

46.

Whitehurst, D. G., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health, 17(5), 570–577.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Hays, R. D., Siu, A. L., Keeler, E., Marshall, G. N., Kaplan, R. M., Simmons, S., et al. (1996). Long-term care residents’ preferences for health states on the quality of well-being scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(3), 254–261.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., & Longworth, L. (2015). An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health, 18(1), 52–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

49.

Tosh, J., Brazier, J., Evans, P., & Longworth, L. (2012). A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health, 15(1), 118–127.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Kaplan, R. M., Tally, S., Hays, R. D., Feeny, D., Ganiats, T. G., Palta, M., et al. (2011). Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(5), 497–506.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Feeny, D., Spritzer, K., Hays, R. D., Liu, H., Ganiats, T. G., Kaplan, R. M., et al. (2012). Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Medical Decision Making, 32(2), 273–286.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: a comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury
verfasst von: David G. T. Whitehurst
Nicole Mittmann
Vanessa K. Noonan
Marcel F. Dvorak
Stirling Bryan
Publikationsdatum: 20.04.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1297-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2016

The relative impact of chronic conditions and multimorbidity on health-related quality of life in Ontario long-stay home care clients

The relationships of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression symptoms with health-related quality of life and the role of social support among Veterans

The Swedish SCOPA-SLEEP for assessment of sleep disorders in Parkinson’s disease and healthy controls

Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments

Predictors of health-related quality of life in people with a complex chronic disease including multimorbidity: a longitudinal cohort study

Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool

Premium Partner