Delphine De Smedt1, Els Clays2, Lieven Annemans3, Dirk De Bacquer2. 1. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Belgium. Electronic address: delphine.desmedt@ugent.be. 2. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Belgium. 3. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije University Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; I-CHER Interuniversity Center for Health Economics, Ghent and Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) utility scores and six-dimensional health state classification (SF-6D) utility scores (derived from the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12]) by using a large European sample of patients with stable coronary heart disease. Special attention was given to country-specific results. METHODS: Data from the EURopean Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events III (EUROASPIRE III) survey were used. Patients hospitalized for a coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, acute myocardial infarction, or myocardial ischemia were interviewed and examined at least 6 months after their acute event. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the EQ-5D and the SF-12. SF-12 outcomes were converted to SF-6D utility values, allowing comparison between both measures. RESULTS: Both EQ-5D and SF-6D results were available for 7472 patients with coronary heart disease from 20 European countries. The measures were significantly correlated (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.536); however, large differences between the two measures remain. A total of 28.8% of the patients reported a ceiling effect on the EQ-5D instrument, whereas only 4.2% of the patients reported full health based on the SF-6D. Especially the mental component does not seem to be completely captured by the EQ-5D instrument. Furthermore, patients with worse EQ-5D outcomes were more likely to have better SF-6D results, whereas patients with better EQ-5D outcomes were more likely to have worse SF-6D results. CONCLUSIONS: Both measures are not interchangeable. Whereas the main disadvantage of the EQ-5D questionnaire is its ceiling effect, the potential advantages of SF-12 might disappear when converting the outcomes into an SF-6D utility, because of the small differences between patients.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) utility scores and six-dimensional health state classification (SF-6D) utility scores (derived from the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12]) by using a large European sample of patients with stable coronary heart disease. Special attention was given to country-specific results. METHODS: Data from the EURopean Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events III (EUROASPIRE III) survey were used. Patients hospitalized for a coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, acute myocardial infarction, or myocardial ischemia were interviewed and examined at least 6 months after their acute event. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the EQ-5D and the SF-12. SF-12 outcomes were converted to SF-6D utility values, allowing comparison between both measures. RESULTS: Both EQ-5D and SF-6D results were available for 7472 patients with coronary heart disease from 20 European countries. The measures were significantly correlated (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.536); however, large differences between the two measures remain. A total of 28.8% of the patients reported a ceiling effect on the EQ-5D instrument, whereas only 4.2% of the patients reported full health based on the SF-6D. Especially the mental component does not seem to be completely captured by the EQ-5D instrument. Furthermore, patients with worse EQ-5D outcomes were more likely to have better SF-6D results, whereas patients with better EQ-5D outcomes were more likely to have worse SF-6D results. CONCLUSIONS: Both measures are not interchangeable. Whereas the main disadvantage of the EQ-5D questionnaire is its ceiling effect, the potential advantages of SF-12 might disappear when converting the outcomes into an SF-6D utility, because of the small differences between patients.
Authors: Lisa Van Wilder; Elke Rammant; Els Clays; Brecht Devleesschauwer; Nele Pauwels; Delphine De Smedt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Elizabeth A Sugar; Alyce E Burke; Vidya Venugopal; Jennifer E Thorne; Janet T Holbrook Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Elisa J de Koning; Nikita L van der Zwaluw; Janneke P van Wijngaarden; Evelien Sohl; Elske M Brouwer-Brolsma; Harm W J van Marwijk; Anke W Enneman; Karin M A Swart; Suzanne C van Dijk; Annelies C Ham; Nathalie van der Velde; André G Uitterlinden; Brenda W J H Penninx; Petra J M Elders; Paul Lips; Rosalie A M Dhonukshe-Rutten; Natasja M van Schoor; Lisette C P G M de Groot Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Friederike-Marie Butscher; Stefan Rakete; Myriam Tobollik; Viola Mambrey; Dingani Moyo; Dennis Shoko; Shamiso Muteti-Fana; Nadine Steckling-Muschack; Stephan Bose-O'Reilly Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.186