nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2007 | Original Paper

US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?

verfasst von: I-Chan Huang, Richard J. Willke, Mark J. Atkinson, William R. Lenderking, Constantine Frangakis, Albert W. Wu

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 6/2007

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Maximizing the value of validation findings to better understand treatment satisfaction issues for diabetes

Nächster Artikel Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer

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

Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 324, 1417.PubMedCrossRef

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

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

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef

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.

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hunt, S. M., Alonso, J., Bucquet, D., Niero, M., Wiklund, I., McKenna, S. (1991). Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. European group for health management and quality of life assessment. Health Policy, 19, 33–44.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., Revicki, D. A. (1993). Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 2, 467–475.PubMedCrossRef

12.

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

13.

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.

14.

Greiner, W., Weijnen, T., Nieuwenhuizen, M. et al (2003). A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. results from a six-country study. The European Journal of Health Economics, 4, 222–231.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Wu, A. W., Jacobson, K. L., Frick, K. D. et al (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the Europol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11, 273–282.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R. (2003). Areas of decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQL): Comparing the SF-12, EQ-5D, and HUI 3. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1059–1067.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R., Tancredi, D. J., Jia, H. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24, 247–254.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Lawrence, W. F., Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24, 160–169.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Oster, G., Harding, G., Dukes, E., Edelsberg, J., Cleary, P. D. (2005). Pain, medication use, and health-related quality of life in older persons with postherpetic neuralgia: Results from a population-based survey. Journal of Pain, 6, 356–363.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Jia, H., Lubetkin, E. I. (2005). The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general adult US population. Journal of public Health, 27, 156–164.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., Feeny, D. H., Shuaib, A., Carriere, K. C., Nasser, A. M. (2004). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Stroke, 35, 607–612.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43, 203–220.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Johnson, J. A., Luo, N., Shaw, J. W., Kind, P., Coons, S. J. (2005). Valuations of EQ-5D health states: Are the united states and united kingdom different?. Medical Care, 43, 221–228.PubMedCrossRef

24.

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.

25.

Prieto, L., Alonso, J., Viladrich, M. C., Anto, J. M. (1996). Scaling the Spanish version of the Nottingham health profile: Evidence of limited value of item weights. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 31–38.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Weinfurt, K. P., Willke, R. J., Glick, H. A., Freimuth, W. W., Schulman, K. A. (2000). Relationship between CD4 count, viral burden, and quality of life over time in HIV-1-infected patients. Medical Care, 38, 404–410.PubMedCrossRef

27.

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

28.

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

29.

Wu, A. W., Revicki, D. A., Jacobson, D., Malitz, F. E. (1997). Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the medical outcomes study HIV health survey (MOS-HIV). Quality of Life Research, 6, 481–493.PubMedCrossRef

30.

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

31.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E Jr, Rogers, W., Raczek, A. E., Lu, J. F. (1992). The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. results from the medical outcomes study. Medical Care, 30, MS253–65.PubMedCrossRef

32.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E Jr, Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.PubMedCrossRef

33.

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

34.

STATCorp. (2001). Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.

35.

Walters, S. J., Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Franzblau, A. N. (1958). A primer of statistics for non-statisticians. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

37.

Havranek, E. P., Steiner, J. F. (2005). Valuation of health states in the US versus the UK: Two measures divided by a common language? Medical Care, 43, 201–202.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Harrell, F. E, Jr, Lee, K. L., Mark, D. B. (1996). Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in medicine, 15, 361–387.PubMedCrossRef

39.

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.

40.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Medical Care, 43, 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Jenkinson, C. (1991). Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 1413–1416.PubMedCrossRef

42.

McGrath, C., Bedi, R. (2004). Why are we “weighting”? an assessment of a self-weighting approach to measuring oral health-related quality of life. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32, 19–24.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Prieto, L., Sacristan, J. A. (2004). What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, 10.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Badia, X., Alonso, J. (1995). Re-scaling the Spanish version of the sickness impact profile: An opportunity for the assessment of cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 949–957.PubMedCrossRef

45.

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

46.

Ware, J. E, Jr., Gandek, B., Kosinski, M. et al (1998). The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1167–1170.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12, 599–607.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Patrick, D. L., Sittampalam, Y., Somerville, S. M., Carter, W. B., Bergner, M. A (1985). cross-cultural comparison of health status values. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 1402–1407.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Bucquet, D., Condon, S., Ritchie, K. (1990). The French version of the Nottingham health profile. A comparison of items weights with those of the source version. Social Science and Medicine, 30, 829–835.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Jenkinson, C. (1999). Comparison of UK and US methods for weighting and scoring the SF-36 summary measures. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21, 372–376.PubMedCrossRef

51.

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

52.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Titel: US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?
verfasst von: I-Chan Huang
Richard J. Willke
Mark J. Atkinson
William R. Lenderking
Constantine Frangakis
Albert W. Wu
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2007
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 6/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9206-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

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 6/2007

Factors associated with health-related quality of life among hemodialysis patients in the DOPPS

Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer

Fatigue in breast cancer survivors two to five years post diagnosis: a HEAL Study report

Cultural adaptation and application of the IBS–QOL in China: a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire

Effect of trauma on quality of life as mediated by mental distress and moderated by coping and social support among postconflict displaced Ethiopians

Maximizing the value of validation findings to better understand treatment satisfaction issues for diabetes