Spyros Kolovos1, Judith E Bosmans2, Johanna M van Dongen2, Birre van Esveld2, Dorcas Magai3, Annemieke van Straten3, Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis4,5, Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg6, Klaas M Huijbregts7, Harm van Marwijk8,9, Heleen Riper3, Maurits W van Tulder2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.kolovos@vu.nl. 2. Department of Health Sciences, and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Social Psychiatry Tranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 5. Clinical Centre of Excellence for Body, Mind and Health, GGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 6. Dr. Leo Kannerhuis, Doorwerth, The Netherlands. 7. GGNet, Mental Health - RGC Winterswijk, Winterswijk, The Netherlands. 8. Centre for Primary Care, Institute for Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 9. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Depression is associated with considerable impairments in health-related quality-of-life. However, the relationship between different health states related to depression severity and utility scores is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether utility scores are different for various health states related to depression severity. METHODS: We gathered individual participant data from ten randomized controlled trials evaluating depression treatments. The UK EQ-5D and SF-6D tariffs were used to generate utility scores. We defined five health states that were proposed from American Psychiatric Association and National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines: remission, minor depression, mild depression, moderate depression, and severe depression. We performed multilevel linear regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 1629 participants in the analyses. The average EQ-5D utility scores for the five health states were 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.73) for remission, 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) for minor depression, 0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) for mild depression, 0.52 (95%CI 0.49-0.56) for moderate depression, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.35-0.43) for severe depression. In comparison with the EQ-5D, the utility scores based on the SF-6D were similar for remission (EQ-5D = 0.70 vs. SF-6D = 0.69), but higher for severe depression (EQ-5D = 0.39 vs. SF-6D = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We observed statistically significant differences in utility scores between depression health states. Individuals with less severe depressive symptoms had on average statistically significant higher utility scores than individuals suffering from more severe depressive symptomatology. In the present study, EQ-5D had a larger range of values as compared to SF-6D.
OBJECTIVES:Depression is associated with considerable impairments in health-related quality-of-life. However, the relationship between different health states related to depression severity and utility scores is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether utility scores are different for various health states related to depression severity. METHODS: We gathered individual participant data from ten randomized controlled trials evaluating depression treatments. The UK EQ-5D and SF-6D tariffs were used to generate utility scores. We defined five health states that were proposed from American Psychiatric Association and National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines: remission, minor depression, mild depression, moderate depression, and severe depression. We performed multilevel linear regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 1629 participants in the analyses. The average EQ-5D utility scores for the five health states were 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.73) for remission, 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) for minor depression, 0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) for mild depression, 0.52 (95%CI 0.49-0.56) for moderate depression, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.35-0.43) for severe depression. In comparison with the EQ-5D, the utility scores based on the SF-6D were similar for remission (EQ-5D = 0.70 vs. SF-6D = 0.69), but higher for severe depression (EQ-5D = 0.39 vs. SF-6D = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We observed statistically significant differences in utility scores between depression health states. Individuals with less severe depressive symptoms had on average statistically significant higher utility scores than individuals suffering from more severe depressive symptomatology. In the present study, EQ-5D had a larger range of values as compared to SF-6D.
Authors: Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Yannis Tountas; Dimitris Niakas Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Claire Jenkinson; Michael Doherty; David K Whynes; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Health Econ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Johanna M van Dongen; Heleen Riper; Claudia Buntrock; Pim Cuijpers; David D Ebert; Anna S Geraedts; Robin M Kenter; Stephanie Nobis; Andrea Smith; Lisanne Warmerdam; Jill A Hayden; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Aureliano P Finch; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Femke van Nassau; Hana M Broulikova; Agni Baka; Shaun Treweek; Cindy M Gray; Judith G M Jelsma; Christopher Bunn; Glyn C Roberts; Marlene N Silva; Jason M R Gill; Øystein Røynesdal; Willem van Mechelen; Eivind Andersen; Kate Hunt; Sally Wyke; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 6.457