Poyu Chen1, Keh-Chung Lin2,3, Rong-Jiuan Liing1, Ching-Yi Wu4,5, Chia-Ling Chen6,7, Ku-Chou Chang8. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 259 Wenhua 1st Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 259 Wenhua 1st Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan. cywu@mail.cgu.edu.tw. 5. Healthy Aging Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. cywu@mail.cgu.edu.tw. 6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 7. Graduate Institute of Early Intervention, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 8. Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the criterion validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in people receiving rehabilitation after stroke. METHODS: The EQ-5D-5L, along with four criterion measures-the Medical Research Council scales for muscle strength, the Fugl-Meyer assessment, the functional independence measure, and the Stroke Impact Scale-was administered to 65 patients with stroke before and after 3- to 4-week therapy. Criterion validity was estimated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Responsiveness was analyzed by the effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and criterion responsiveness. The MCID was determined by anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. The percentage of patients exceeding the MCID was also reported. RESULTS: Concurrent validity of the EQ-Index was better compared with the EQ-VAS. The EQ-Index has better power for predicting the rehabilitation outcome in the activities of daily living than other motor-related outcome measures. The EQ-Index was moderately responsive to change (SRM = 0.63), whereas the EQ-VAS was only mildly responsive to change. The MCID estimation of the EQ-Index (the percentage of patients exceeding the MCID) was 0.10 (33.8 %) and 0.10 (33.8 %) based on the anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, respectively, and the estimation of EQ-VAS was 8.61 (41.5 %) and 10.82 (32.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-Index has shown reasonable concurrent validity, limited predictive validity, and acceptable responsiveness for detecting the health-related quality of life in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation, but not for EQ-VAS. Future research considering different recovery stages after stroke is warranted to validate these estimations.
PURPOSE: To examine the criterion validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in people receiving rehabilitation after stroke. METHODS: The EQ-5D-5L, along with four criterion measures-the Medical Research Council scales for muscle strength, the Fugl-Meyer assessment, the functional independence measure, and the Stroke Impact Scale-was administered to 65 patients with stroke before and after 3- to 4-week therapy. Criterion validity was estimated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Responsiveness was analyzed by the effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and criterion responsiveness. The MCID was determined by anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. The percentage of patients exceeding the MCID was also reported. RESULTS: Concurrent validity of the EQ-Index was better compared with the EQ-VAS. The EQ-Index has better power for predicting the rehabilitation outcome in the activities of daily living than other motor-related outcome measures. The EQ-Index was moderately responsive to change (SRM = 0.63), whereas the EQ-VAS was only mildly responsive to change. The MCID estimation of the EQ-Index (the percentage of patients exceeding the MCID) was 0.10 (33.8 %) and 0.10 (33.8 %) based on the anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, respectively, and the estimation of EQ-VAS was 8.61 (41.5 %) and 10.82 (32.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-Index has shown reasonable concurrent validity, limited predictive validity, and acceptable responsiveness for detecting the health-related quality of life in strokepatients undergoing rehabilitation, but not for EQ-VAS. Future research considering different recovery stages after stroke is warranted to validate these estimations.
Entities:
Keywords:
EQ-5D-5L; MCID; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Validity
Authors: Ben van Hout; M F Janssen; You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Jan Busschbach; Dominik Golicki; Andrew Lloyd; Luciana Scalone; Paul Kind; A Simon Pickard Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Dominik Golicki; Maciej Niewada; Julia Buczek; Anna Karlińska; Adam Kobayashi; M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Stephanie L Harrison; Lisa Kouladjian O'Donnell; Clare E Bradley; Rachel Milte; Suzanne M Dyer; Emmanuel S Gnanamanickam; Enwu Liu; Sarah N Hilmer; Maria Crotty Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Ingrid Kindermann; Sonja Maria Wedegärtner; Felix Mahfoud; Joachim Weil; Nicole Brilakis; Julia Ukena; Sebastian Ewen; Dominik Linz; Martin Fahy; Giuseppe Mancia; Michael Böhm Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2017-05-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Rosa Cabanas-Valdés; Lídia Boix-Sala; Montserrat Grau-Pellicer; Juan Antonio Guzmán-Bernal; Fernanda Maria Caballero-Gómez; Gerard Urrútia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Katherine A Lin; Caroline P E Price; Julia H Huang; Saied Ghadersohi; David Cella; Robert C Kern; David B Conley; Stephanie Shintani-Smith; Kevin C Welch; Bruce K Tan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 5.426