Julie A Campbell1, Andrew J Palmer1, Alison Venn1, Melanie Sharman1, Petr Otahal1, Amanda Neil2. 1. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. 2. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. Amanda.Neil@utas.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial health status is an important and dynamic outcome for bariatric/metabolic surgery patients, as acknowledged in recent international standardised outcomes reporting guidelines. Multi-attribute utility-instruments (MAUIs) capture and assess an individual's health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) within a single valuation, their utility. Neither MAUIs nor utilities were discussed in the guidelines. Many MAUIs (e.g. EQ-5D) target physical health. Not so the AQoL-8D. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to explore agreement between, and suitability of, the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D for assessing health state utility, and to determine whether either MAUI could be preferentially recommended for metabolic/bariatric surgery patients. METHODS: Utilities for post-surgical private-sector patients (n = 33) were assessed using both instruments and summary statistics expressed as mean [standard deviation (SD)] and median [interquartile range (IQR)]. Interchangeability of the MAUIs was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. Discriminatory attributes were investigated through floor/ceiling effects and dimension-to-dimension comparisons. Spearman's rank measured associations between the instruments' utility values and with the body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L utility value was 0.84 (0.15) and median 0.84 (IQR 0.75-1.00). Mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility value was 0.76 (0.17) and median 0.81 (IQR 0.63-0.88). Spearman's rank was r = 0.68; (p < 0.001); however, Bland-Altman analysis revealed fundamental differences. Neither instrument gave rise to floor effects. A ceiling effect was observed with the EQ-5D-5L, with 36 % of participants obtaining a utility value of 1.00 (perfect health). These same participants obtained a mean utility of 0.87 on the AQoL-8D, primarily driven by the mental-super-dimension score (0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The AQoL-8D preferentially captures psychosocial aspects of metabolic/bariatric surgery patients' HRQoL. We recommend the AQoL-8D as a preferred MAUI for these patients given their complex physical/psychosocial needs.
BACKGROUND:Psychosocial health status is an important and dynamic outcome for bariatric/metabolic surgery patients, as acknowledged in recent international standardised outcomes reporting guidelines. Multi-attribute utility-instruments (MAUIs) capture and assess an individual's health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) within a single valuation, their utility. Neither MAUIs nor utilities were discussed in the guidelines. Many MAUIs (e.g. EQ-5D) target physical health. Not so the AQoL-8D. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to explore agreement between, and suitability of, the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D for assessing health state utility, and to determine whether either MAUI could be preferentially recommended for metabolic/bariatric surgery patients. METHODS: Utilities for post-surgical private-sector patients (n = 33) were assessed using both instruments and summary statistics expressed as mean [standard deviation (SD)] and median [interquartile range (IQR)]. Interchangeability of the MAUIs was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. Discriminatory attributes were investigated through floor/ceiling effects and dimension-to-dimension comparisons. Spearman's rank measured associations between the instruments' utility values and with the body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L utility value was 0.84 (0.15) and median 0.84 (IQR 0.75-1.00). Mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility value was 0.76 (0.17) and median 0.81 (IQR 0.63-0.88). Spearman's rank was r = 0.68; (p < 0.001); however, Bland-Altman analysis revealed fundamental differences. Neither instrument gave rise to floor effects. A ceiling effect was observed with the EQ-5D-5L, with 36 % of participants obtaining a utility value of 1.00 (perfect health). These same participants obtained a mean utility of 0.87 on the AQoL-8D, primarily driven by the mental-super-dimension score (0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The AQoL-8D preferentially captures psychosocial aspects of metabolic/bariatric surgery patients' HRQoL. We recommend the AQoL-8D as a preferred MAUI for these patients given their complex physical/psychosocial needs.
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: Vincent W Lin; Edwin S Wong; Andrew Wright; David R Flum; Louis P Garrison; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Luciana Scalone; Roberta Ciampichini; Stefano Fagiuoli; Ivan Gardini; Francesco Fusco; Laura Gaeta; Anna Del Prete; Giancarlo Cesana; Lorenzo G Mantovani Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Yaling Yang; Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Tracey Young; Louise Longworth Journal: Value Health Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ingrid A Cox; Julie Campbell; Barbara de Graaff; Petr Otahal; Tamera J Corte; Yuben Moodley; Peter Hopkins; Sacha Macansh; E Haydn Walters; Andrew J Palmer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Julie A Campbell; Martin Hensher; Amanda Neil; Alison Venn; Petr Otahal; Stephen Wilkinson; Andrew J Palmer Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2018-12