Fang Zhang1, Yu Yang2, Tao Huang3, Yiye Zhang1, Li Zhao1, Shuchuen Li4. 1. School of Business Administration, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China. 2. Beijing Union University Hospital, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 4. Discipline of Pharmacy and Experimental Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of both generic and disease-specific instruments in assessing quality of life (QoL) in subjects may pose a barrier in a busy clinical setting with heavy case load. Our current study attempted to evaluate the responsiveness of generic scales, EQ-5D and SF-6D, as compared with a disease-specific instrument, AIM2-SF, in patients with osteoarthritis, to judge which of the two generic instruments would be more suitable to be used alone in the clinical setting. METHODS: Correlation tests with Pearson correlation coefficient were carried out between EQ-5D and SF-6D scales, and AIMS2-SF scale for both 100 first-diagnosed osteoarthritis patients and 22 patients with two follow-up interviews. Multivariate stepwise regression analysis was further performed on the impact of dimensions that affect the change of QoL. RESULTS: In the evaluation of QoL for 100 patients with osteoarthritis by the EQ-5D scale, anxiety was the dimension with the highest sensitivity; while the SF-6D scale had higher sensitivity on two dimensions of psychological health and role limitations. Therefore, SF-6D would appear more suitable for evaluating QoL of arthritis patients at first presentation. For patients at follow-up interviews, EQ-5D scale maintained the highest sensitivity on anxiety and SF-6D scale only had high sensitivity on the psychological health dimension. As such, the two scales would have equivalent effects for the patients at follow-up interviews. In comparison, all the dimensions of SF-6D showed significant correlation with practically every dimension of AIMS2-SF. Hence, the overall results indicate SF-6D may be more suitable for use in patients with clinical osteoarthritis.
BACKGROUND: The use of both generic and disease-specific instruments in assessing quality of life (QoL) in subjects may pose a barrier in a busy clinical setting with heavy case load. Our current study attempted to evaluate the responsiveness of generic scales, EQ-5D and SF-6D, as compared with a disease-specific instrument, AIM2-SF, in patients with osteoarthritis, to judge which of the two generic instruments would be more suitable to be used alone in the clinical setting. METHODS: Correlation tests with Pearson correlation coefficient were carried out between EQ-5D and SF-6D scales, and AIMS2-SF scale for both 100 first-diagnosed osteoarthritispatients and 22 patients with two follow-up interviews. Multivariate stepwise regression analysis was further performed on the impact of dimensions that affect the change of QoL. RESULTS: In the evaluation of QoL for 100 patients with osteoarthritis by the EQ-5D scale, anxiety was the dimension with the highest sensitivity; while the SF-6D scale had higher sensitivity on two dimensions of psychological health and role limitations. Therefore, SF-6D would appear more suitable for evaluating QoL of arthritispatients at first presentation. For patients at follow-up interviews, EQ-5D scale maintained the highest sensitivity on anxiety and SF-6D scale only had high sensitivity on the psychological health dimension. As such, the two scales would have equivalent effects for the patients at follow-up interviews. In comparison, all the dimensions of SF-6D showed significant correlation with practically every dimension of AIMS2-SF. Hence, the overall results indicate SF-6D may be more suitable for use in patients with clinical osteoarthritis.
Authors: Yangyang Shi; Peipei Zhu; Jie Jia; Zengwu Shao; Shuhua Yang; Wei Chen; Ke Zhang; Wei Tong; Hongtao Tian Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-04-25