Dataset Information

Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments.

ABSTRACT: A number of instruments have been developed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL), differing in the health domains covered and their scoring. Although few such measures have been consistently included in US national health surveys over time, the surveys have included data on a broad range of symptoms and impairments, which enables the tracking of population health trends.To compare trends in HRQoL as measured using existing instruments versus using a broader range of symptoms and impairments collected in multiple years of nationally representative data.Data were from the 2000-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which is nationally representative of the noninstitutionalized US population. Level of and trends in HRQoL derived from a broad range of survey symptoms and impairments (SSI) was compared with HRQoL from the SF-6D, the HALex, and, between 2000 and 2003, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale.Trends in HRQoL were similar using different measures. The SSI scores correlated 0.66-0.80 with scores from other measures and mean SSI scores were between those of other measures. Scores from all HRQoL measures declined similarly with increasing age and with the presence of comorbid conditions.Measuring HRQoL using a broader range of symptoms and impairments than those in a single instrument yields population health trends similar to those from other measures while making maximum use of existing data and providing rich detail on the factors underlying change.

SUBMITTER: Stewart ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4233005 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments.

Stewart Susan T ST Cutler David M DM Rosen Allison B AB

Medical care 20141201 12

<h4>Background</h4>A number of instruments have been developed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL), differing in the health domains covered and their scoring. Although few such measures have been consistently included in US national health surveys over time, the surveys have included data on a broad range of symptoms and impairments, which enables the tracking of population health trends.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare trends in HRQoL as measured using existing instruments versus usi ...[more]

PMID: 25014733

Similar Datasets

Project description:Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments - EQ-5D and SF-6D - for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain.Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland-Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness.The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland-Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D.This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the psychometric performance of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised-8 Dimensions (CFQ-R-8D), a new, condition-specific, preference-based measure, with that of generic preference-based measures EQ-5D-3L and Short Form 6 dimensions (SF-6D).MethodsData from three trials of participants with CF aged ≥ 14 years who completed the CFQ-R and EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D were used. Analyses were undertaken to evaluate convergent validity based on correlations with CFQ-R domain scores. Known-group validity was assessed based on percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second and pulmonary exacerbations. Responsiveness was based on correlation of change and sensitivity to change based on change in symptom severity. Effect sizes and standardized response means were estimated.ResultsCFQ-R-8D utilities and dimensions were strongly correlated with most of the overlapping CFQ-R domain scores (ρ > 0.5); EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D utilities and dimensions had moderate (ρ > 0.3) to strong correlations in dimensions capturing similar concepts. All measures showed evidence of known-group validity (P < 0.05). Change correlations were strong for CFQ-R-8D utilities and dimensions and CFQ-R, but they were moderate for SF-6D and mostly weak ((ρ > 0.1) for EQ-5D-3L. The SF-6D had the largest mean change over time and effect sizes, followed by CFQ-R-8D and then EQ-5D-3L. Neither CFQ-R-8D or SF-6D utility scores had ceiling effects (< 9% responses in full health) compared with those of EQ-5D-3L (61-62%). In participants classified as being in full health by EQ-5D-3L, CFQ-R-8D captured CF-specific health problems, particularly cough, abdominal pain, and breathing difficulty.ConclusionsThe CFQ-R-8D reflected known-group differences and changes over time with stronger evidence of good psychometric performance than EQ-5D-3L and similar evidence as SF-6D. Additionally, the CFQ-R-8D captured more condition-specific symptoms than EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D, which are important determinants of health-related quality of life for people with CF.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare utility weights of EuroQoL-five-dimension-3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) and Short-Form six-dimension (SF-6D) in a representative cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is designed to report the change to costs required to achieve an estimated change to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The quality component of a QALY is measured by utility. Utility represents the preference of general population for a given health state. Classification systems of the multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are used to define these health states. Utility weights developed from different classification systems can vary and may affect the conclusions from CUAs. DESIGN:A community-based cross-sectional study. SETTING:Anuradhapura, a rural district in Sri Lanka. PARTICIPANTS:A representative sample of 1096 patients with CKD, selected using the population-based CKD register, completed the EQ-5D-3L and SF-36. SF-6D was constructed from the SF-36 according to the published algorithm. The study assessed discrimination, correlation and differences across the two instruments. RESULTS:Study participants were predominantly male (62.6%). Mean EQ-5D-3L utility score was 0.540 (SD 0.35) compared with 0.534 (SD 0.09) for the SF-6D (p=0.588). The correlation (r) between the scores was 0.40 (p<0.001). Utility scores were significantly different in both males and females between the two tools, but there was no difference in age and educational categories. Both MAUI scores were significantly lower (p<0.001) among those who were in more advanced stages of the disease and the corresponding utility scores of the two instruments in different CKD stages were also significantly different (p<0.05). The largest effect size was seen among the patients on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS:The correlation between the scores was moderate. SF-6D had the lowest floor and ceiling effect and was better at detecting different stages of the disease. Thus, based on the evidence presented in this study, SF-6D appears to be more appropriate to be used among patients with CKD.

Dataset Information

Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments.

Publications

Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets