Literature DB >> 12835603

Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments.

Barbara Conner-Spady1, Maria E Suarez-Almazor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the interchangeability of preference-based health-related quality of life tools and compare the potential gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in patients with musculoskeletal disease.
METHODS: Consecutive patients visiting a rheumatology clinic completed health-related quality of life assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months with the EuroQol (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index (HUI3), and Short-Form 6D (SF-6D). Patients rated their health changes retrospectively and responses were categorized into three groups: better, same, and worse. Correlations and repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc contrasts and a Bonferroni correction were used to assess interchangeability of tools.
RESULTS: Results were based on 161 cases with complete baseline data and 98 cases with data at baseline and 12 months. Correlations ranged from 0.66 to 0.79. An interaction effect showed that for the better group, the EQ-5D showed a significantly greater mean improvement (0.15) than the HUI3 (0.07) or the SF-6D (0.05). For the worse group, the EQ-5D showed a significantly greater mean decrease (0.19) than either the HUI3 (0.05) or the SF-6D (0.03). QALYs differences between the better and worse groups were significantly greater (0.23) with the EQ-5D than with the HUI3 (0.11) or the SF-6D (0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Although results moderately support the idea that the three tools are measuring a similar underlying construct, the tools are not interchangeable because they are scaled differently and produce varying results. These findings have potential implications for the interpretation and comparability of health outcome studies and economic analyses. Possible approaches are sensitivity analysis or standardization of scores before calculation of QALYs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12835603     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200307000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  50 in total

1.  Can EQ-5D and 15D be used interchangeably in economic evaluations? Assessing quality of life in post-stroke patients.

Authors:  Lene Lunde
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06-08

2.  Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.

Authors:  Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Health values of patients coinfected with HIV/hepatitis C: are two viruses worse than one?

Authors:  Joseph M Mrus; Kenneth E Sherman; Anthony C Leonard; Susan N Sherman; Karen L Mandell; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?

Authors:  Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 19.103

6.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Retrospective baseline measurement of self-reported health status and health-related quality of life versus population norms in the evaluation of post-injury losses.

Authors:  W L Watson; J Ozanne-Smith; J Richardson
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.399

8.  Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy.

Authors:  J T Langfitt; B G Vickrey; M P McDermott; S Messing; A T Berg; S S Spencer; M R Sperling; C W Bazil; S Shinnar
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Authors:  M J Harrison; L M Davies; N J Bansback; M J McCoy; S M M Verstappen; K Watson; D P M Symmons
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.