TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures
T2 - Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders
AU - Moock, Jörn
AU - Kohlmann, Thomas
N1 - MEDLINE® is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.
PY - 2008/4/1
Y1 - 2008/4/1
N2 - Objectives
To compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.
Methods
Patients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.
Results
Mean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.
Conclusions
Results obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.
AB - Objectives
To compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.
Methods
Patients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.
Results
Mean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.
Conclusions
Results obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.
KW - Health sciences
KW - Preference-based HRQoL
KW - Head-to-head comparison
KW - EQ-5D
KW - HUI 2
KW - HUI 3
KW - SF-6D
KW - 15D
KW - QWB-SA
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/41149145533
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/11049caa-b14c-3f42-8fe2-dcbd335d6f5b/
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6
DO - 10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:41149145533
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 17
SP - 485
EP - 495
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 3
ER -
SDG 3 – Gute Gesundheit und Wohlergehen