Elisa Aguirre1, Sujin Kang2, Zoe Hoare3, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards4, Martin Orrell5. 1. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Charles Bell House, 67-73 Riding House Street, London, W1W 7EJ, England, UK. e.aguirre@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Charles Bell House, 67-73 Riding House Street, London, W1W 7EJ, England, UK. s.kang@bangor.ac.uk. 3. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Charles Bell House, 67-73 Riding House Street, London, W1W 7EJ, England, UK. z.hoare@bangor.ac.uk. 4. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Charles Bell House, 67-73 Riding House Street, London, W1W 7EJ, England, UK. r.t.edwards@bangor.ac.uk. 5. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Charles Bell House, 67-73 Riding House Street, London, W1W 7EJ, England, UK. m.orrell@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess and compare the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in relation to other dementia-specific measures, the QoL-AD and DEMQoL, within a psychosocial intervention study. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-two people with dementia completed the EQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD. Convergent and discriminant validity of the measures were assessed, and inter-rater reliability was tested by comparing the self-reported and proxy scores of the measures. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Results satisfy convergent validity amongst the three outcome measures. EQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD total scores were shown to be significantly correlated with each other (p < 0.001) in both participants with dementia and proxy reports. Results also satisfied discriminant validity for participant EQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD total scores. In relation to reliability between self and proxy scores, the EQ-5D showed higher reliability scores between participant and proxy total scores for mild and moderate level of cognitive impairment and performed better than the dementia-specific measures. Reliability assessed through Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory, indicating adequate internal consistency of all three measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the EQ-5D might have advantages over other dementia-specific measures, and it could be used routinely and as a stand-alone measure of quality of life in dementia research.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess and compare the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in relation to other dementia-specific measures, the QoL-AD and DEMQoL, within a psychosocial intervention study. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-two people with dementia completed the EQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD. Convergent and discriminant validity of the measures were assessed, and inter-rater reliability was tested by comparing the self-reported and proxy scores of the measures. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Results satisfy convergent validity amongst the three outcome measures. EQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD total scores were shown to be significantly correlated with each other (p < 0.001) in both participants with dementia and proxy reports. Results also satisfied discriminant validity for participantEQ-5D, DEMQoL and QoL-AD total scores. In relation to reliability between self and proxy scores, the EQ-5D showed higher reliability scores between participant and proxy total scores for mild and moderate level of cognitive impairment and performed better than the dementia-specific measures. Reliability assessed through Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory, indicating adequate internal consistency of all three measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the EQ-5D might have advantages over other dementia-specific measures, and it could be used routinely and as a stand-alone measure of quality of life in dementia research.
Entities:
Keywords:
DEMQoL; Dementia; EQ-5D; QoL-AD; Quality of life; Utility
Authors: S C Smith; D L Lamping; S Banerjee; R Harwood; B Foley; P Smith; J C Cook; J Murray; M Prince; E Levin; A Mann; M Knapp Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Elisa Aguirre; Aimee Spector; Juanita Hoe; Ian T Russell; Martin Knapp; Robert T Woods; Martin Orrell Journal: Trials Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Georgina Charlesworth; Karen Burnell; Jennifer Beecham; Zoë Hoare; Juanita Hoe; Jennifer Wenborn; Martin Knapp; Ian Russell; Bob Woods; Martin Orrell Journal: Trials Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: B Mulhern; D Rowen; J Brazier; S Smith; R Romeo; R Tait; C Watchurst; K-C Chua; V Loftus; T Young; D Lamping; M Knapp; R Howard; S Banerjee Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Rebecca Gathercole; Rosie Bradley; Emma Harper; Lucy Davies; Lynn Pank; Natalie Lam; Anna Davies; Emma Talbot; Emma Hooper; Rachel Winson; Bethany Scutt; Victoria Ordonez Montano; Samantha Nunn; Grace Lavelle; Matthew Lariviere; Shashivadan Hirani; Stefano Brini; Andrew Bateman; Peter Bentham; Alistair Burns; Barbara Dunk; Kirsty Forsyth; Chris Fox; Catherine Henderson; Martin Knapp; Iracema Leroi; Stanton Newman; John O'Brien; Fiona Poland; John Woolham; Richard Gray; Robert Howard Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Elizaveta Sopina; Lynn Chenoweth; Tim Luckett; Meera Agar; Georgina M Luscombe; Patricia M Davidson; Constance D Pond; Jane Phillips; Stephen Goodall Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alys W Griffiths; Sarah J Smith; Adam Martin; David Meads; Rachael Kelley; Claire A Surr Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.147