OBJECTIVES: This article analyzes published studies on the application of the EQ-5D for the assessment of quality of life in patients with dementia and their carers. The EQ-5D, a generic instrument for measuring health-related quality of life, is widely used for economic evaluation in many areas of health research. However, there is considerable debate about the appropriateness of the EQ-5D for people with impaired cognition. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of research studies published in the past 10 years that either used the EQ-5D as an outcome measure or investigated different aspects of the performance of the EQ-5D in studies of dementia. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that despite good feasibility and reliability of the EQ-5D instrument, there are problems with the validity of self-rated data because of a lack of association between patient and proxy ratings. There is a substantial ceiling effect for patient ratings. The visual analogue scale has poor reliability, even in patients with mild and moderate dementia. Different proxies (e.g., family carers, institutional carers, and health-care professionals) provide different ratings for patients' health. CONCLUSION: Careful selection of assessment mode and appropriate proxies is important to ensure the EQ-5D validity in studies of patients with dementia. Because the cost of informal patient care represents a significant proportion of total costs of dementia treatment, the impact of dementia on carer's quality of life should be included in economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: This article analyzes published studies on the application of the EQ-5D for the assessment of quality of life in patients with dementia and their carers. The EQ-5D, a generic instrument for measuring health-related quality of life, is widely used for economic evaluation in many areas of health research. However, there is considerable debate about the appropriateness of the EQ-5D for people with impaired cognition. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of research studies published in the past 10 years that either used the EQ-5D as an outcome measure or investigated different aspects of the performance of the EQ-5D in studies of dementia. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that despite good feasibility and reliability of the EQ-5D instrument, there are problems with the validity of self-rated data because of a lack of association between patient and proxy ratings. There is a substantial ceiling effect for patient ratings. The visual analogue scale has poor reliability, even in patients with mild and moderate dementia. Different proxies (e.g., family carers, institutional carers, and health-care professionals) provide different ratings for patients' health. CONCLUSION: Careful selection of assessment mode and appropriate proxies is important to ensure the EQ-5D validity in studies of patients with dementia. Because the cost of informal patient care represents a significant proportion of total costs of dementia treatment, the impact of dementia on carer's quality of life should be included in economic evaluation.
Authors: Fanni Rencz; László Gulácsi; Michael Drummond; Dominik Golicki; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Judit Simon; Elly A Stolk; Valentin Brodszky; Petra Baji; Jakub Závada; Guenka Petrova; Alexandru Rotar; Márta Péntek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn Richardson; George M Savva; Penelope J Boyd; Clare Aldus; Ian Maidment; Eduwin Pakpahan; Yoon K Loke; Antony Arthur; Nicholas Steel; Clive Ballard; Robert Howard; Chris Fox Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Rebecca Gathercole; Rosie Bradley; Emma Harper; Lucy Davies; Lynn Pank; Natalie Lam; Anna Davies; Emma Talbot; Emma Hooper; Rachel Winson; Bethany Scutt; Victoria Ordonez Montano; Samantha Nunn; Grace Lavelle; Matthew Lariviere; Shashivadan Hirani; Stefano Brini; Andrew Bateman; Peter Bentham; Alistair Burns; Barbara Dunk; Kirsty Forsyth; Chris Fox; Catherine Henderson; Martin Knapp; Iracema Leroi; Stanton Newman; John O'Brien; Fiona Poland; John Woolham; Richard Gray; Robert Howard Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Emilia Castro-Monteiro; Maria João Forjaz; Alba Ayala; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Gloria Fernandez-Mayoralas; Alicia Diaz-Redondo; Pablo Martinez-Martin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Carlo A Marra; Ging-Yuek R Hsiung; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 13.800