Dataset Information

Discriminative validity of the EQ-5D-5?L and SF-12 in older adults with arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The EQ-5D-5?L and the SF-12 are the most commonly used generic measures of health-related quality of life among people with arthritis. However, there is little evidence on the extent to which the individual dimensions and domains of these instruments perform among this population. The objective was to examine the discriminative validity of the EQ-5D-5?L and the SF-12 version 2 (and SF-6D) in capturing the burden of arthritis on health-related quality of life in older adults.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the Alberta Retired Teachers Association survey were used. A known-groups approach, with a-priori hypotheses, was used to examine the discriminative validity of the domain and summary scores of the EQ-5D-5?L and the SF-12 version 2 (and SF-6D). Groups were defined based on self-reported of arthritis, chronic pain level, presence and number of comorbidities, and self-reported health status.

Results

Mean age of respondents (N?=?2844) was 68.6 (standard deviation [SD] 5.9) years; 54.8% were female, with mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.2?kg/m² (SD 4.8), and 36.6% reported having arthritis. The overall mean EQ-5D-5?L index score was 0.86 (SD 0.11) and that of SF-6D was 0.79 (SD 0.13). Participants with arthritis had lower EQ-5D-5?L index score (0.83, SD 0.13) and SF-6D index score (0.75, SD 0.13) compared to those without arthritis (0.88, SD 0.09 and 0.81, SD 0.12, respectively). EQ-5D-5?L and SF-6D index scores demonstrated moderate discriminative validity with a moderate effect size (0.5). Related dimensions and domains between the EQ-5D-5?L and SF-12 (e.g., mobility with physical functioning score, pain/discomfort with bodily pain and anxiety/depression with mental health) were moderately to strongly correlated (r?=?0.6-0.7). Both instruments could not adequately discriminate between participants with moderate and severe chronic pain of 6-month duration.

Conclusion

Overall, the EQ-5D-5?L pain/discomfort and mobility dimensions, and the SF-12 bodily pain scale had moderate discriminative ability among older adults with arthritis. However, both instruments had limited discriminative ability for chronic pain. The importance and nature of chronic pain assessment in a given application need to be considered when choosing any of these instruments for measuring health-related quality of life in this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Tawiah AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6469074 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BACKGROUND:The EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), developed in 1990, is a most widely used generic tool to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and considered suitable for patients with asthma. In 2009, the EuroQol Group developed a new EQ-5D version to overcome limitations related to its consistently reported high ceiling effect. To enhance the sensitivity for assessing the HRQoL in further patient populations, the number of responses of EQ-5D was increased from 3 to 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L). Moreover, the availability of well-defined requirements for its Web-based administration allows EQ-5D-5L use to monitor the HRQoL in electronic health (eHealth) programs. No study has evaluated the metric properties of the new EQ-5D-5L in patients with asthma yet. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to examine the distribution, construct validity, and reliability of the new EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered online to adults with asthma. METHODS:We evaluated patients with asthma (age: 18-40 years) from a primary care setting in France and England, who self-completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire online. The inclusion criteria were persistent asthma defined as >6 months of prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists or inhaled corticosteroids alone during the 12 months prior to inclusion. The EQ-5D index was obtained by applying the English preference value set for the new EQ-5D-5L and the French 3L-5L crosswalk value set. Both value sets produced single preference-based indices ranging from 1 (best health state) to negative values (health states valued as worse than death), where 0=death, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life years. Responses to dimensions and index distribution, including ceiling and floor effects, were examined. The construct validity was assessed by comparing the means of known groups by analyses of variance and calculation of effect sizes. RESULTS:Of 312 patients answering the baseline Web-based survey, 290 completed the EQ-5D-5L (93%). The floor effect was null, and the ceiling effect was 26.5% (74/279). The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.88 (SD 0.14) with the English value set and 0.83 (SD 0.19) with the French 3L-5L crosswalk value set. In both indices, large effect sizes were observed for known groups defined by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (1.06 and 1.04, P<.001). Differences between extreme groups defined by chronic conditions (P=.002 and P=.003 for the English value set and French 3L-5L crosswalk value set, respectively), short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) canisters in the last 12 months (P=.02 and P=.03), or SABA use during the previous 4 weeks (P=.03 and P=.01) were of moderate magnitude with effect sizes around 0.5. CONCLUSIONS:The new EQ-5D-5L questionnaire has an acceptable ceiling effect, a good construct validity based on the discriminant ability for distinguishing among health-related known groups, and high reliability, supporting its adequacy for assessing the HRQoL in patients with asthma. EQ-5D-5L completion by most Web-based respondents supports the feasibility of this administration form.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians are currently challenged to support older adults to maintain a certain level of Functional Independence (FI). FI is defined as "functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one's own context". A Core Outcome Set was developed to measure FI. The purpose of this study was to assess discriminative validity of the Core Outcome Set FI (COSFI) in a population of Dutch older adults (≥ 65 years) with different levels of FI. Secondary objective was to assess to what extent the underlying domains 'coping', 'empowerment' and 'health literacy' contribute to the COSFI in addition to the domain 'physical capacity'.MethodsA population of 200 community-dwelling older adults and older adults living in residential care facilities were evaluated by the COSFI. The COSFI contains measurements on the four domains of FI: physical capacity, coping, empowerment and health literacy. In line with the COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, predefined hypotheses regarding prediction accuracy and differences between three subgroups of FI were tested. Testing included ordinal logistic regression analysis, with main outcome prediction accuracy of the COSFI on a proxy indicator for FI.ResultsOverall, the prediction accuracy of the COSFI was 68%. For older adults living at home and depending on help in (i)ADL, prediction accuracy was 58%. 60% of the preset hypotheses were confirmed. Only physical capacity measured with Short Physical Performance Battery was significantly associated with group membership. Adding health literacy with coping or empowerment to a model with physical capacity improved the model significantly (p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe current composition of the COSFI, did not yet meet the COSMIN criteria for discriminative validity. However, with some adjustments, the COSFI potentially becomes a valuable instrument for clinical practice. Context-related factors, like the presence of a spouse, also may be a determining factor in this population. It is recommended to include context-related factors in further research on determining FI in subgroups of older people.