Literature DB >> 15789955

Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke.

A Simon Pickard1, Jeffrey A Johnson, David H Feeny.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare five preference-based generic measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in terms of change scores, correlations among change scores, responsiveness, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.
DESIGN: Observational longitudinal cohort study where clinical measures and self-assessed HRQOL measures were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 6 months. Patients were categorized as 'stable', 'some improvement' and 'large improvement' using the Barthel Index, Modified Rankin Scale (MRS), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). For each group, paired t-tests and variants of effect size were used to compare the responsiveness of preference-based HRQOL summary scores, including the EQ-5D VAS and index-based score, SF-6D, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) overall utility scores.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight of 124 (79%) patients completed the 6-month follow-up. Change scores of the EQ-Index, HUI2, and HUI3 were strongly correlated with changes in the Barthel Index and MRS, while the EQ-5D VAS had higher correlation with CES-D change scores than the other measures. The SF-6D, HUI3, and EQ-Index were generally more responsive than the HUI2 and EQ-5D Visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). QALY estimates based on the EQ-5D index and HUI3 were twice as large as estimates based on the SF-6D and HUI2.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may assist in informing the selection of a preference-based generic HRQOL measure, although choice will also depend on study goals and context. We would caution against the generalization of the study results on responsiveness to conditions when more subtle change is expected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15789955     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-3928-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  49 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures.

Authors:  K Stavem
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.045

5.  Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients.

Authors:  J C van Swieten; P J Koudstaal; M C Visser; H J Schouten; J van Gijn
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.

Authors:  M H Liang; M G Larson; K E Cullen; J A Schwartz
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1985-05

7.  Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey.

Authors:  P Grootendorst; D Feeny; W Furlong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  The sensitivity and specificity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in screening for post-stroke depression.

Authors:  R M Parikh; D T Eden; T R Price; R G Robinson
Journal:  Int J Psychiatry Med       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.210

Review 9.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.

Authors:  Stephen J Walters; John E Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  58 in total

1.  Measuring health status and decline in at-risk seniors residing in the community using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2.

Authors:  Jenny X Zhang; Jennifer D Walker; Walter P Wodchis; David B Hogan; David H Feeny; Colleen J Maxwell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  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

3.  A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Alan M Jette; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  How consistent are health utility values?

Authors:  Pedro L Ferreira; Lara N Ferreira; Luis N Pereira
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common?

Authors:  Uwe Konerding; Jörn Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The association of survey language (Spanish vs. English) with Health Utilities Index and EQ-5D index scores in a United States population sample.

Authors:  Nan Luo; Yu Ko; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Complications among colorectal cancer survivors: SF-6D preference-weighted quality of life scores.

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

8.  Validation of the EQ-5D in Patients with Traumatic Limb Injury.

Authors:  Mei-Chuan Hung; Wen-Shian Lu; Sheng-Shiung Chen; Wen-Hsuan Hou; Ching-Lin Hsieh; Jung-Der Wang
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2015-06

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.  Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders.

Authors:  Joern Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.