Ava Mehdipour1, Marla K Beauchamp1,2,3, Joshua Wald2,4, Nicole Peters1, Ayse Kuspinar5. 1. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada. 2. Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, 50 Charlton Ave. E., Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. 3. Respiratory Research, West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, ON, M6M 2J5, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 5. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada. kuspinaa@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preference-based measures can provide measurements of health-related quality of life and be utilized for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether generic preference-based measures are reliable, valid, and responsive in COPD. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the sample represented individuals with COPD and the aim was to evaluate one or more psychometric properties or the interpretability of generic preference-based measures. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-seven abstracts were screened, 65 full-text articles were reviewed and 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. Measures which emerged from the search were the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, the Quality of Well-being scale, the 15D, and the Health Utilities Index 3. Evidence for the test-retest reliability of these measures was limited. Construct validity of the measures was well supported with correlations with generic health profiles being 0.37-0.68, and correlations with COPD-specific health profiles being 0.53-0.75. Evidence for known-groups validity of these measures was poor and data on responsiveness were mixed. CONCLUSION: Generic preference-based measures' sensitivity to change and ability to discriminate between different disease severities in COPD was poorly supported. Future research may consider examining the development of COPD-specific preference-based measures that may allow for a more accurate detection of change and discrimination among disease severities to facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluations.
PURPOSE: Preference-based measures can provide measurements of health-related quality of life and be utilized for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether generic preference-based measures are reliable, valid, and responsive in COPD. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the sample represented individuals with COPD and the aim was to evaluate one or more psychometric properties or the interpretability of generic preference-based measures. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-seven abstracts were screened, 65 full-text articles were reviewed and 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. Measures which emerged from the search were the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, the Quality of Well-being scale, the 15D, and the Health Utilities Index 3. Evidence for the test-retest reliability of these measures was limited. Construct validity of the measures was well supported with correlations with generic health profiles being 0.37-0.68, and correlations with COPD-specific health profiles being 0.53-0.75. Evidence for known-groups validity of these measures was poor and data on responsiveness were mixed. CONCLUSION: Generic preference-based measures' sensitivity to change and ability to discriminate between different disease severities in COPD was poorly supported. Future research may consider examining the development of COPD-specific preference-based measures that may allow for a more accurate detection of change and discrimination among disease severities to facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluations.
Authors: Ava Mehdipour; Sachi O'Hoski; Marla K Beauchamp; Joshua Wald; Ayse Kuspinar Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.186