| Literature DB >> 35123496 |
Estelina Ortega-Gómez1,2, Purificación Vicente-Galindo3,4, Helena Martín-Rodero5, Purificación Galindo-Villardón3,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Response Shift (RS) refers to the idea that an individual may undergo changes in its health-related quality of life (HRQOL). If internal standard, values, or reconceptualization of HRQOL change over time, then answer to the same items by the same individuals may not be comparable over time. Traditional measures to evaluate RS is prone to bias and strong methodologies to study the existence of this phenomenon is required. The objective is to systematically identify, analyze, and synthesize the existing and recent evidence of statistical methods used for RS detection in HRQOL studies.Entities:
Keywords: Multivariate analysis; Response shift; Statistical methods; Systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35123496 PMCID: PMC8818219 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-01926-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of the search strategy for publications included in the review
Fig. 2Number of publications by year
Instruments mostly used in analyzed studies
| Instrument used | Code | Number |
|---|---|---|
| European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life-Questionnaire Core 30 | EORTC QLQ-C30 | 20 |
| 36-Item Short Form Survey | SF-36 | 22 |
| 12-Item Short Form Survey | SF-12 | 7 |
| EuroQol – 5 Dimensions | EQ-5D | 10 |
| Oral Health Impact Profile | OHIP | 6 |
Fig. 3Number of articles (n = 107), Response Shift detection and type
Frequency of methods used for Response Shift detection
| Method | Total ( | Response shift detection | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Not indicated | ||
| Then-test | 41 | 32 | 9 | 0 |
| Structural Equation Models (Oort) | 35 | 26 | 9 | 0 |
| Structural Equation Models (Schmidt) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Multiple Linear Regression | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Relative Importance Method | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Mixed-Effects Regression | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Classification and Regression Trees | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Random Forest Regression | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Logistics Regression Model | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Item Response Theory | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Latent Trajectory Analysis | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Other methods | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 |
Number of articles according to the detection method and type of Response Shift
| Method | Type of Response Shift | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recalibration | Reprioritization | Reconceptualization | Not indicated | |
| Then-Test | 27 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| Structural Equation Models (Oort) | 24 | 13 | 7 | 1 |
| Structural Equation Models (Schmidt) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Multiple Linear Regression | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Relative Importance Method | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Mixed-Effects Regression | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Classification and Regression Trees | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Random Forest Regression | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Logistics Regression Model | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Item Response Theory | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Latent Trajectory Analysis | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Other methods | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Fig. 4Frequency of methods used for Response Shift detection by year