David G T Whitehurst1, Richard Norman2, John E Brazier3, Rosalie Viney2. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: david_whitehurst@sfu.ca. 2. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality-of-life instruments has been widely reported across patient and community-based samples. This study compares index scores generated from contemporaneous EQ-5D (3-level version) and SF-6D (SF-36 version) responses using scoring algorithms derived from independently-conducted Australian population-representative discrete choice experiments (DCEs), providing the first comparative analysis of health state valuations using the same method of valuation across the full value sets. METHODS: EQ-5D and SF-6D responses from seven patient data sets were transformed into health state valuations using published DCE-derived scoring algorithms. The empirical comparative evaluation consisted of graphical illustration of the location and spread of index scores, reporting of basic descriptive statistics, exploration of between-measure differences in mean index scores, and analysis of agreement. RESULTS: Compared with previously published findings regarding the comparability of "conventional" EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores, health state valuations from the DCE-derived scoring procedures showed that agreement between scores remained "fair" (intraclass correlation coefficient values across the seven data sets ranged from 0.375 to 0.615). Mean SF-6D scores were significantly lower than the respective mean EQ-5D score across all patient groups (mean difference for the whole sample = 0.253). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of disagreement previously reported between EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores is not ameliorated through the application of DCE-derived value sets; sizeable discrepancies remain. These findings suggest that differences between EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores persist because of their respective descriptive systems. Further research is required to explore the implications of variations in the descriptive systems of preference-based instruments.
OBJECTIVES: Poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality-of-life instruments has been widely reported across patient and community-based samples. This study compares index scores generated from contemporaneous EQ-5D (3-level version) and SF-6D (SF-36 version) responses using scoring algorithms derived from independently-conducted Australian population-representative discrete choice experiments (DCEs), providing the first comparative analysis of health state valuations using the same method of valuation across the full value sets. METHODS: EQ-5D and SF-6D responses from seven patient data sets were transformed into health state valuations using published DCE-derived scoring algorithms. The empirical comparative evaluation consisted of graphical illustration of the location and spread of index scores, reporting of basic descriptive statistics, exploration of between-measure differences in mean index scores, and analysis of agreement. RESULTS: Compared with previously published findings regarding the comparability of "conventional" EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores, health state valuations from the DCE-derived scoring procedures showed that agreement between scores remained "fair" (intraclass correlation coefficient values across the seven data sets ranged from 0.375 to 0.615). Mean SF-6D scores were significantly lower than the respective mean EQ-5D score across all patient groups (mean difference for the whole sample = 0.253). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of disagreement previously reported between EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores is not ameliorated through the application of DCE-derived value sets; sizeable discrepancies remain. These findings suggest that differences between EQ-5D and SF-6D index scores persist because of their respective descriptive systems. Further research is required to explore the implications of variations in the descriptive systems of preference-based instruments.
Authors: Lidia Engel; Duncan Mortimer; Stirling Bryan; Scott A Lear; David G T Whitehurst Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Liam M Hannan; David G T Whitehurst; Stirling Bryan; Jeremy D Road; Christine F McDonald; David J Berlowitz; Mark E Howard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Lidia Engel; Long Khanh-Dao Le; Anne Magnus; Meredith Harris; Mary Lou Chatterton Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Niels Janssen; Ron L Handels; Anders Wimo; Riitta Antikainen; Tiina Laatikainen; Hilkka Soininen; Timo Strandberg; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Miia Kivipelto; Silvia M A A Evers; Frans R J Verhey; Tiia Ngandu Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160