Todd A Lee1, William Hollingworth, Sean D Sullivan. 1. Midwest Center for Health Services and Policy Research, Hines VA Hospital, P.O. Box 5000 (151-H), Hines, IL 60141, USA. lee@research.hines.med.va.gov
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Algorithms have been developed that estimate preferences from the Short Form 36 (SF-36). The objective of this study was to compare SF-36-derived preferences to directly elicited preferences. METHODS: The authors used data from a clinical trial of adult asthmatics to derive preferences from the SF36 and compare those to visual analog scale (VAS) values and the Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). RESULTS: The differences between VAS and derived preferences ranged from -0.066 to 0.024 at baseline and 0.006 to 0.107 at the end of follow-up. All measures improved from baseline (P < 0.001); however, derived preferences underestimated change (0.066 to 0.131) compared to the VAS (0.173) (P < 0.001), which could affect economic evaluations. Correlations between preferences and the AQLQ ranged from 0.56 to 0.70 at baseline (P < 0.001) and 0.53 to 0.70 for changes from baseline (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The derivation methods produce valid and responsive measures of patient preference. However, derived preferences differ from one another and directly elicited VAS preferences.
INTRODUCTION: Algorithms have been developed that estimate preferences from the Short Form 36 (SF-36). The objective of this study was to compare SF-36-derived preferences to directly elicited preferences. METHODS: The authors used data from a clinical trial of adult asthmatics to derive preferences from the SF36 and compare those to visual analog scale (VAS) values and the Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). RESULTS: The differences between VAS and derived preferences ranged from -0.066 to 0.024 at baseline and 0.006 to 0.107 at the end of follow-up. All measures improved from baseline (P < 0.001); however, derived preferences underestimated change (0.066 to 0.131) compared to the VAS (0.173) (P < 0.001), which could affect economic evaluations. Correlations between preferences and the AQLQ ranged from 0.56 to 0.70 at baseline (P < 0.001) and 0.53 to 0.70 for changes from baseline (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The derivation methods produce valid and responsive measures of patient preference. However, derived preferences differ from one another and directly elicited VAS preferences.
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
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Christopher S Wendel; Stephen Joel Coons; Marcia Grant; Lisa J Herrinton; M Jane Mohler; Carol M Baldwin; Carmit K McMullen; Sylvan B Green; Andrea Altschuler; Susan M Rawl; Robert S Krouse Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Leah Y Carreon; Paul A Anderson; Christine M McDonough; Mladen Djurasovic; Steven D Glassman Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Leah Y Carreon; Steven D Glassman; Christine M McDonough; Raja Rampersaud; Sigurd Berven; Michael Shainline Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Donna K McClish; Lynne T Penberthy; Viktor E Bovbjerg; John D Roberts; Imoigele P Aisiku; James L Levenson; Susan D Roseff; Wally R Smith Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-08-29 Impact factor: 3.186