Joern Moock1, Thomas Kohlmann. 1. University of Greifswald, Institute for Community Medicine, Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 48, Greifswald 17475, Germany. joern.moock@uni-greifswald.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS: Patients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed. RESULTS: Mean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D-QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2-HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures. CONCLUSIONS: Results obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS:Patients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed. RESULTS: Mean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D-QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2-HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures. CONCLUSIONS: Results obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.
Authors: Taru Kantola; Suvi Mäklin; Anna-Maria Koivusalo; Pirjo Räsänen; Anne Rissanen; Risto Roine; Harri Sintonen; Krister Höckerstedt; Helena Isoniemi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Maija L Hytönen; Markus Lilja; Antti A Mäkitie; Harri Sintonen; Risto P Roine Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: K Aro; L Bäck; V Loimu; K Saarilahti; S Rogers; H Sintonen; R Roine; Antti Mäkitie Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Liam M Hannan; David G T Whitehurst; Stirling Bryan; Jeremy D Road; Christine F McDonald; David J Berlowitz; Mark E Howard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 4.147