Koonal Kirit Shah1, Brendan Mulhern2, Louise Longworth3, M F Janssen4. 1. Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. kshah@ohe.org. 2. Centre for Health Economics and Research Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, 1-59 Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. 3. PHMR Limited, Berkeley Works, Berkley Grove, London, NW1 8XY, UK. 4. Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The EQ-5D is a standardised instrument designed for use as a generic measure of health outcome. It was (and is) intended to provide information about a 'common core' of dimensions known to be relevant across a range of conditions; however, the five dimensions may not fully capture the health-related impacts of certain conditions. This study analyses the views of the UK general public about important aspects of health considered to be missing from the instrument. METHODS: Survey respondents were asked whether there are any aspects of health they consider to be important but are not captured by the EQ-5D, and, if so, what these aspects are. The responses (text comments) were analysed using content analysis with analyst triangulation. Data were collected from a broadly representative sample of the general public via a paper questionnaire administered as part of face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Data are available for 436 respondents, 179 of whom suggested aspects of health they considered important but not captured by the five EQ-5D dimensions. These were organised into 22 themes. Sensory deprivation and mental health were the health aspects most commonly mentioned by respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents identified several important aspects of health that are not covered by the EQ-5D descriptive system. This study can provide the basis for more detailed qualitative and quantitative research-in particular to examine the views of different patient groups-to inform further review of the EQ-5D descriptive system. The results also have implications for the sensitivity of other generic measures.
INTRODUCTION: The EQ-5D is a standardised instrument designed for use as a generic measure of health outcome. It was (and is) intended to provide information about a 'common core' of dimensions known to be relevant across a range of conditions; however, the five dimensions may not fully capture the health-related impacts of certain conditions. This study analyses the views of the UK general public about important aspects of health considered to be missing from the instrument. METHODS: Survey respondents were asked whether there are any aspects of health they consider to be important but are not captured by the EQ-5D, and, if so, what these aspects are. The responses (text comments) were analysed using content analysis with analyst triangulation. Data were collected from a broadly representative sample of the general public via a paper questionnaire administered as part of face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Data are available for 436 respondents, 179 of whom suggested aspects of health they considered important but not captured by the five EQ-5D dimensions. These were organised into 22 themes. Sensory deprivation and mental health were the health aspects most commonly mentioned by respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents identified several important aspects of health that are not covered by the EQ-5D descriptive system. This study can provide the basis for more detailed qualitative and quantitative research-in particular to examine the views of different patient groups-to inform further review of the EQ-5D descriptive system. The results also have implications for the sensitivity of other generic measures.
Authors: Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Tracey Young; Sabine Gaugris; Benjamin M Craig; Madeleine T King; Galina Velikova Journal: Value Health Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Brendan Mulhern; Clara Mukuria; Michael Barkham; Martin Knapp; Sarah Byford; Djøra Soeteman; John Brazier Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Machteld Huber; J André Knottnerus; Lawrence Green; Henriëtte van der Horst; Alejandro R Jadad; Daan Kromhout; Brian Leonard; Kate Lorig; Maria Isabel Loureiro; Jos W M van der Meer; Paul Schnabel; Richard Smith; Chris van Weel; Henk Smid Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-26
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: Krittaphas Kangwanrattanakul; Cynthia R Gross; Montaya Sunantiwat; Montarat Thavorncharoensap Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Fenna R M Leijten; Maaike Hoedemakers; Verena Struckmann; Markus Kraus; Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi; Antal Zemplényi; Rune Ervik; Claudia Vallvé; Mirjana Huiĉ; Thomas Czypionka; Melinde Boland; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.692