OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of the EuroQoL EQ-5D and two condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures--the Symptom Severity Index (SSI) and the Urinary Incontinence-Specific Quality of Life instrument (I-QoL)--in women with urinary incontinence. METHODS: A questionnaire comprising all instruments was completed by women taking part in a clinical trial of physiotherapy for urinary incontinence. Follow-up questionnaires were at 6 weeks and 5 months. Data quality, internal consistency reliability, validity and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four patients taking part in the clinical trial completed the questionnaire. Instruments had low levels of missing data. The EQ-5D had a large ceiling effect and poor responsiveness. The SSI had poor validity and responsiveness. The I-QoL had levels of reliability that supported application in group assessment, and in some cases, individual assessment, and good evidence of validity. The I-QoL was the most responsive instrument at both 6 weeks and 5 months. CONCLUSION: The I-QoL was the best performing instrument and is recommended as a continence-specific measure of quality of life in a clinical trial setting. The SSI and EQ-5D are not recommended. Alternative generic instruments, which support economic evaluation, require further evaluation in trials of female urinary incontinence.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of the EuroQoL EQ-5D and two condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures--the Symptom Severity Index (SSI) and the Urinary Incontinence-Specific Quality of Life instrument (I-QoL)--in women with urinary incontinence. METHODS: A questionnaire comprising all instruments was completed by women taking part in a clinical trial of physiotherapy for urinary incontinence. Follow-up questionnaires were at 6 weeks and 5 months. Data quality, internal consistency reliability, validity and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four patients taking part in the clinical trial completed the questionnaire. Instruments had low levels of missing data. The EQ-5D had a large ceiling effect and poor responsiveness. The SSI had poor validity and responsiveness. The I-QoL had levels of reliability that supported application in group assessment, and in some cases, individual assessment, and good evidence of validity. The I-QoL was the most responsive instrument at both 6 weeks and 5 months. CONCLUSION: The I-QoL was the best performing instrument and is recommended as a continence-specific measure of quality of life in a clinical trial setting. The SSI and EQ-5D are not recommended. Alternative generic instruments, which support economic evaluation, require further evaluation in trials of female urinary incontinence.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Donald M Bushnell; Mona L Martin; Kent H Summers; Jan Svihra; Christos Lionis; Donald L Patrick Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: J L Martin; K S Williams; K R Abrams; D A Turner; A J Sutton; C Chapple; R P Assassa; C Shaw; F Cheater Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Angela Marinilli Pinto; Leslee L Subak; Sanae Nakagawa; Eric Vittinghoff; Rena R Wing; John W Kusek; William H Herman; Delia Smith West; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-12-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Siera Goodnight; Anna L Kratz; Julie C Stout; Michael K McCormack; Jane S Paulsen; Nicholas R Boileau; David Cella; Rebecca E Ready Journal: J Huntingtons Dis Date: 2019
Authors: Nick Freemantle; Kristin Khalaf; Clara Loveman; Sanja Stanisic; Dmitry Gultyaev; Johanna Lister; Marcus Drake Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-10-19
Authors: William Hollingworth; Jonathan D Campbell; Jonathan Kowalski; Arliene Ravelo; Isabelle Girod; Andrew Briggs; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nacho Castejón; Kristin Khalaf; Quanhong Ni; Jesús Cuervo; Donald L Patrick Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: J Stochl; T Croudace; J Perez; M Birchwood; H Lester; M Marshall; T Amos; V Sharma; D Fowler; P B Jones Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 4.147