Heidi S Harvie1, Amanda A Honeycutt2, Simon J Neuwahl2, Matthew D Barber3, Holly E Richter4, Anthony G Visco5, Vivian W Sung6, Jonathan P Shepherd7, Rebecca G Rogers8, Sharon Jakus-Waldman9, Donna Mazloomdoost10. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: hharvie@obgyn.upenn.edu. 2. Clinical Research Network Coordination, RTI, Research Triangle Park, NC. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland, Cleveland, OH. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown, Providence, RI. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico and Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Downey, Downey, CA. 10. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.
BACKGROUND: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.
Keywords:
EuroQol; Short Form 6D; health-related quality of life; minimal important difference; pelvic floor disorders; pelvic organ prolapse; utility score
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John T Wei; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Charles W Nager; Matthew D Barber; Kim Kenton; Cindy L Amundsen; Joseph Schaffer; Susan F Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne M Weber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Koichi Ogura; Meredith K Bartelstein; Mohamed A Yakoub; Zarko Nikolic; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-12-20 Impact factor: 3.102