Heidi S Harvie1, Judy A Shea2, Uduak U Andy1, Kate Propert3, J Sanford Schwartz2, Lily A Arya1. 1. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the construct validity of 3 health status classification system instruments-Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and Short Form 6D (SF-6D)-and a visual analog scale (VAS) for measuring utility scores in women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Utility scores were measured in 202 women with urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor symptom severity and quality of life were measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, respectively. Construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Significant correlations were noted between utility scores and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (r = -0.22 to -0.42, P < .05) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (r = -0.32 to -0.50, P < .05). Mean utility scores were significantly lower for women with urge or mixed incontinence compared to stress incontinence for the EQ-5D (0.71 ± 0.23, 0.73 ± 0.26, and 0.81 ± 0.16, respectively, P = .02) and the SF-6D (0.76 ± 0.12, 0.74 ± 0.12, and 0.81 ± 0.11, respectively, P = .02) but not the HUI-3 or the VAS. There was a clinically important difference in utility scores (>0.03) between women with urge or mixed incontinence as compared to stress incontinence for the HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D but not the VAS. Utility preference scores were significantly lower for women with combined urinary and fecal incontinence (0.69-0.73) than urinary incontinence alone (0.77-0.84, P < .01). CONCLUSION: The HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D, but not the VAS, provide valid measurements for utility scores in women with stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the construct validity of 3 health status classification system instruments-Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and Short Form 6D (SF-6D)-and a visual analog scale (VAS) for measuring utility scores in women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Utility scores were measured in 202 women with urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor symptom severity and quality of life were measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, respectively. Construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Significant correlations were noted between utility scores and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (r = -0.22 to -0.42, P < .05) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (r = -0.32 to -0.50, P < .05). Mean utility scores were significantly lower for women with urge or mixed incontinence compared to stress incontinence for the EQ-5D (0.71 ± 0.23, 0.73 ± 0.26, and 0.81 ± 0.16, respectively, P = .02) and the SF-6D (0.76 ± 0.12, 0.74 ± 0.12, and 0.81 ± 0.11, respectively, P = .02) but not the HUI-3 or the VAS. There was a clinically important difference in utility scores (>0.03) between women with urge or mixed incontinence as compared to stress incontinence for the HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D but not the VAS. Utility preference scores were significantly lower for women with combined urinary and fecal incontinence (0.69-0.73) than urinary incontinence alone (0.77-0.84, P < .01). CONCLUSION: The HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D, but not the VAS, provide valid measurements for utility scores in women with stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence.
Authors: Holly E Richter; C L Amundsen; S W Erickson; J E Jelovsek; Y Komesu; C Chermansky; H S Harvie; M Albo; D Myers; W T Gregory; D Wallace Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Cindy L Amundsen; Holly E Richter; Shawn Menefee; Sandip Vasavada; David D Rahn; Kim Kenton; Heidi S Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susie Meikle Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Amit Kiran; Rebecca Sally Geary; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; David A Cromwell; Loveleen Bansi-Matharu; Judy Shakespeare; Tahir Mahmood; Jan van der Meulen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Heidi S Harvie; Vivian W Sung; Simon J Neuwahl; Amanda A Honeycutt; Isuzu Meyer; Christopher J Chermansky; Shawn Menefee; Whitney K Hendrickson; Gena C Dunivan; Donna Mazloomdoost; Sarah J Bass; Marie G Gantz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 8.661