Miguel Ángel Garcia-Gordillo1, B Del Pozo-Cruz2, J C Adsuar3, J M Cordero-Ferrera4, J M Abellan-Perpiñan5, F I Sanchez-Martinez6. 1. Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.. miguelgarciagordillo@gmail.com. 2. Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.. b.delpozocruz@auckland.ac.nz. 3. Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. Faculty of Sport Science, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain.. jadssal@unex.es. 4. Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.. jmcordero@unex.es. 5. Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.. dionisos@um.es. 6. Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.. fernando@um.es.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: generic, preference-based Health- Related Quality of Life instruments are receiving growing attention in health-care decision-making process. In spite of this, to our knowledge, EQ-5D and SF-6D have never been compared in a Parkinson´s disease population sample. OBJECTIVE: the aim of this paper was to assess the psychometric properties of both instruments in a Spanish PD population sample. METHODS: a total sample of 133 patients were interviewed using EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. The validity, level of agreement and sensitivity of both instruments were computed and then compared. The Spanish tariff has been used in both instruments. RESULTS: utilities of EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D have shown a strong correlation (r >0.50 and p<0.001) with the summary score of the PDQ-8 and the EQ-VAS score. Significant differences were observed in the stages III-IV of the Hoehn & Yahr stage. SF-6D had 51% higher efficiency than EQ-5D at detecting differences in symptoms severity. DISCUSSION: both EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D seem to be adequate generic Health-Related Quality of Life measures in terms of validity and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-3L presents greater ceiling and floor effects than the SF-6D instrument in this sample. Besides, the instrument SF-6D was better at detecting changes in symptoms severity compared with EQ-5D-3L. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: generic, preference-based Health- Related Quality of Life instruments are receiving growing attention in health-care decision-making process. In spite of this, to our knowledge, EQ-5D and SF-6D have never been compared in a Parkinson´s disease population sample. OBJECTIVE: the aim of this paper was to assess the psychometric properties of both instruments in a Spanish PD population sample. METHODS: a total sample of 133 patients were interviewed using EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. The validity, level of agreement and sensitivity of both instruments were computed and then compared. The Spanish tariff has been used in both instruments. RESULTS: utilities of EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D have shown a strong correlation (r >0.50 and p<0.001) with the summary score of the PDQ-8 and the EQ-VAS score. Significant differences were observed in the stages III-IV of the Hoehn & Yahr stage. SF-6D had 51% higher efficiency than EQ-5D at detecting differences in symptoms severity. DISCUSSION: both EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D seem to be adequate generic Health-Related Quality of Life measures in terms of validity and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-3L presents greater ceiling and floor effects than the SF-6D instrument in this sample. Besides, the instrument SF-6D was better at detecting changes in symptoms severity compared with EQ-5D-3L. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
Authors: Gemma Biviá-Roig; Valentina Lucia La Rosa; María Gómez-Tébar; Lola Serrano-Raya; Juan José Amer-Cuenca; Salvatore Caruso; Elena Commodari; Antonio Barrasa-Shaw; Juan Francisco Lisón Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bustanul Arifin; Fredrick Dermawan Purba; Hendra Herman; John M F Adam; Jarir Atthobari; Catharina C M Schuiling-Veninga; Paul F M Krabbe; Maarten J Postma Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: César Cuevas-Lara; Mikel Izquierdo; Fabiola Zambom-Ferraresi; Mikel L Sáez de Asteasu; Itxaso Marín-Epelde; Chenhui Chenhuichen; Fabricio Zambom-Ferraresi; Robinson Ramírez-Vélez; Antonio García-Hermoso; Álvaro Casas-Herrero; Amaya Capón-Sáez; Lucia Lozano-Vicario; Irene Criado-Martín; Marina Sánchez-Latorre; Cristina Antoñanzas-Valencia; Nicolás Martínez-Velilla Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.390