Literature DB >> 21918400

Comparability of patient-reported health status: multicountry analysis of EQ-5D responses in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Joshua A Salomon1, Anushka Patel, Bruce Neal, Paul Glasziou, Diederick E Grobbee, John Chalmers, Philip M Clarke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Valid and comparable measures of health outcomes are needed for clinical trials, studies on quality of healthcare, and population health monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: To examine comparability of patient-reported health status across populations. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Logistic regression analysis of health status across regions, controlling for demographics, risk factors, and clinical event history.
SETTING: Multicenter clinical trial in 20 countries, grouped into 3 regions defined by geography and levels of economic development (Asia, Established Market Economies, Eastern Europe).
SUBJECTS: 11,140 people with type 2 diabetes. MEASURES: Patient-reported health status in 5 domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) using EQ-5D.
RESULTS: Examining unadjusted response probabilities, patients in Eastern Europe were consistently more likely than patients in other regions to report problems in all domains. Compared to Asia, probabilities of reporting problems at baseline in Eastern Europe were more than 3 times higher for mobility or usual activities, and more than 6 times higher for self-care. Patients in Asia were less likely than patients in Established Market Economies to report problems in all domains except anxiety/depression. Substantial regional reporting differences persisted after controlling for demographics, common risk factors, and history of major disease complications. Compared to Established Market Economies, adjusted odds ratios for reporting problems in at least 1 health domain were 1.79 (1.55 to 2.06) in Eastern Europe and 0.76 (0.67 to 0.86) in Asia.
CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation across regions in reporting on functional health problems, which cannot be explained by differences in demographic variables, clinical risk factors, or rates of complications. This suggests that commonly used health status instruments may have important problems in comparability across settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21918400     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182239489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  5 in total

1.  Comorbidity, health-related quality of life and self-care in type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in an outpatient population.

Authors:  M P O'Shea; M Teeling; K Bennett
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D.

Authors:  Yan Feng; Mike Herdman; Floortje van Nooten; Charles Cleeland; David Parkin; Shunya Ikeda; Ataru Igarashi; Nancy J Devlin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Comparing the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L: studying measurement and scores in Indonesian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Authors:  Bustanul Arifin; Fredrick Dermawan Purba; Hendra Herman; John M F Adam; Jarir Atthobari; Catharina C M Schuiling-Veninga; Paul F M Krabbe; Maarten J Postma
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland.

Authors:  E M Gamper; M T King; R Norman; F Efficace; F Cottone; B Holzner; G Kemmler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Decrements in health-related quality of life associated with adverse events in people with diabetes.

Authors:  Mi Jun Keng; Jose Leal; Louise Bowman; Jane Armitage; Borislava Mihaylova
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 6.408

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.