Sanjeewa Kularatna1, Joshua Byrnes2,3, Yih Kai Chan4, Chantal F Ski4, Melinda Carrington4, David Thompson4, Simon Stewart4, Paul A Scuffham2,3. 1. Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia. sanjeewa.kularatna@qut.edu.au. 2. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are widely used to measure utility weights. This study sought to compare utility weights of two popular MAUIs, the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D, and inform researchers in the selection of generic MAUI for use with cardiovascular (CVD) patients. METHODS: Data were collected in the Young@Heart study, a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led multidisciplinary home-based intervention compared to standard usual care. Participants (n = 598) completed the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-12v2, from which the SF-6D can be constructed, at baseline and at 24-month follow-up. This study examined discrimination, responsiveness, correlation and differences across the two instruments. RESULTS: Both MAUIs were able to discriminate between the NYHA severity classes and recorded similar changes between the two time points although only SF-6D differences were significant. Correlations between the dimensions of the two MAUIs were low. There were significant differences between the two instruments in mild conditions but they were similar in severe conditions. Substantial ceiling and floor effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the EQ-5D and the SF-6D cover different spaces in health due to their classification systems. Both measures were capable of discriminating between severity groups and responsive to quality of life changes in the follow-up. It is recommended to use the EQ-5D-3L in severe and the SF-6D in mild CVD conditions.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are widely used to measure utility weights. This study sought to compare utility weights of two popular MAUIs, the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D, and inform researchers in the selection of generic MAUI for use with cardiovascular (CVD) patients. METHODS: Data were collected in the Young@Heart study, a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led multidisciplinary home-based intervention compared to standard usual care. Participants (n = 598) completed the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-12v2, from which the SF-6D can be constructed, at baseline and at 24-month follow-up. This study examined discrimination, responsiveness, correlation and differences across the two instruments. RESULTS: Both MAUIs were able to discriminate between the NYHA severity classes and recorded similar changes between the two time points although only SF-6D differences were significant. Correlations between the dimensions of the two MAUIs were low. There were significant differences between the two instruments in mild conditions but they were similar in severe conditions. Substantial ceiling and floor effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the EQ-5D and the SF-6D cover different spaces in health due to their classification systems. Both measures were capable of discriminating between severity groups and responsive to quality of life changes in the follow-up. It is recommended to use the EQ-5D-3L in severe and the SF-6D in mild CVD conditions.
Authors: David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Melinda J Carrington; Yih-Kai Chan; Alicia Calderone; Paul A Scuffham; Adrian Esterman; Stan Goldstein; Simon Stewart Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-07-02
Authors: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jarno Kotajärvi; Anna-Maija Tolppanen; Juha Hartikainen; Heikki Miettinen; Marketta Viljakainen; Janne Martikainen; Risto P Roine; Piia Lavikainen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francis Fatoye; Abiodun Emmanuel Akinfala; Tadesse Gebrye; Clara Fatoye; Titilope Faith Ojelade; Olufemi Oyeleye Oyewole; Chidozie Emmanuel Mbada Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Hasnain M Dalal; Rod S Taylor; Kate Jolly; Russell C Davis; Patrick Doherty; Jackie Miles; Robin van Lingen; Fiona C Warren; Colin Green; Jennifer Wingham; Colin Greaves; Susannah Sadler; Melvyn Hillsdon; Charles Abraham; Nicky Britten; Julia Frost; Sally Singh; Christopher Hayward; Victoria Eyre; Kevin Paul; Chim C Lang; Karen Smith Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 7.804