David Feeny1, Karen Spritzer2, Ron D Hays2, Honghu Liu3, Theodore G Ganiats4, Robert M Kaplan5, Mari Palta6, Dennis G Fryback6. 1. The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Health Utilities Incorporated, Portland, OR (DF) 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (KS, RDH) 3. School of Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles (HL) 4. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego (TGG) 5. Department of Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles (RMK) 6. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison (MP, DGF)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life all use the same dead = 0.00 to perfect health = 1.00 scale, but there are substantial differences among measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine agreement in classifying patients as better, stable, or worse. METHODS: The EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3, Quality of Well-Being-Self-Administered scale, Short-Form 36 (Short-Form 6D), and disease-targeted measures were administered prospectively in 2 clinical cohorts. The study was conducted at academic medical centers: University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, San Diego; University of Wisconsin-Madison; and University of Southern California. Patients undergoing cataract extraction surgery with lens replacement completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Patients newly referred to congestive heart failure specialty clinics completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). In both cohorts, subjects completed surveys at baseline and at 1 and 6 months. The NEI-VFQ-25 and MLHF were used as gold standards to assign patients to categories of change. Agreement was assessed using κ. RESULTS: There were 376 cataract patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 1-month follow-up were available on all measures for 210 cases. Using criteria specified by Altman, agreement was poor for 6 of 9 pairs of comparisons and fair for 3 pairs. There were 160 heart failure patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 6-month follow-up were available for 86 cases. Agreement was negligible for 5 pairs and fair for 1. The study was conducted on selected patients at a few academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the lack of interchangeability among different preference-based measures.
BACKGROUND: Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life all use the same dead = 0.00 to perfect health = 1.00 scale, but there are substantial differences among measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine agreement in classifying patients as better, stable, or worse. METHODS: The EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3, Quality of Well-Being-Self-Administered scale, Short-Form 36 (Short-Form 6D), and disease-targeted measures were administered prospectively in 2 clinical cohorts. The study was conducted at academic medical centers: University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, San Diego; University of Wisconsin-Madison; and University of Southern California. Patients undergoing cataract extraction surgery with lens replacement completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Patients newly referred to congestive heart failure specialty clinics completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). In both cohorts, subjects completed surveys at baseline and at 1 and 6 months. The NEI-VFQ-25 and MLHF were used as gold standards to assign patients to categories of change. Agreement was assessed using κ. RESULTS: There were 376 cataractpatients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 1-month follow-up were available on all measures for 210 cases. Using criteria specified by Altman, agreement was poor for 6 of 9 pairs of comparisons and fair for 3 pairs. There were 160 heart failurepatients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 6-month follow-up were available for 86 cases. Agreement was negligible for 5 pairs and fair for 1. The study was conducted on selected patients at a few academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the lack of interchangeability among different preference-based measures.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Janel Hanmer; Dasha Cherepanov; Mari Palta; Robert M Kaplan; David Feeny; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: David G T Whitehurst; Nicole Mittmann; Vanessa K Noonan; Marcel F Dvorak; Stirling Bryan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer M Yeh; Janel Hanmer; Zachary J Ward; Wendy M Leisenring; Gregory T Armstrong; Melissa M Hudson; Marilyn Stovall; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger; Lisa Diller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mark S Kaplan; Nathalie Huguet; David Feeny; Bentson H McFarland; Raul Caetano; Julie Bernier; Norman Giesbrecht; Lisa Oliver; Nancy Ross Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Anne M Rentz; Jonathan W Kowalski; John G Walt; Ron D Hays; John E Brazier; Ren Yu; Paul Lee; Neil Bressler; Dennis A Revicki Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Value Health Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ping Zhang; Don Hire; Mark A Espeland; William C Knowler; Sheikilya Thomas; Adam G Tsai; Henry A Glick Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 5.002