Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 207-219

  Pickard, A Simon ^a   Johnson, Jeffrey A ^b   Feeny, David H ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c Health Utilities Incorporated   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cerebrovascular disease; Health status indicators; Health related quality of life; Longitudinal studies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; OBSERVATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANKIN SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; STROKE; STUDENT T TEST;

ALBERTA; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 13844255112     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-3928-3     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 188(8): 622-629.
2. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.
3. Pyne JM, Sullivan G, Kaplan R, Keith Williams D. Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia. Med Care 2003; 41(2): 208-217.
4. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(1): 13-35.
5. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483.
6. Brooks R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37(1): 53-72.
7. Feeny DH, Torrance G, Furlong WJ. Chapter 26: Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 239-251.
8. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40(2): 113-128.
9. McHorney CA. Methodological inquiries in health status assessment. Med Care 1998; 36(4): 445-448.
10. Patrick DL, Chiang Y-P. Measurement health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 2000; 38(suppl 2): 14-25.
11. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000; 38(suppl 2): 84-90.
12. Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 1998; 36(4): 491-502.
13. Norman GR, Stratford P, Reghr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(8): 869-879.
14. Kelly-Hayes M, Wolf PA, Kase CS, et al. Time course of functional recovery after stroke: The Framingham Study. J Neurolog Rehab 1989; 3(2): 65-70.
15. Lai S-M, Duncan PW. Stroke recovery profile and the modified rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology 2001; 20: 26-30.
16. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35(11): 1095-1108.
17. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271-292.
18. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1994.
19. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. Chapter 6: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 49-56.
20. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Atherton Day N. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33: 358-370.
21. Locke BA, Putman P. Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Epidemiology and Psychpathology Research Branch, Division of Epidemiology and Services Branch, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Mental Health, 1971.
22. Parikh RM, Eden DT, Price TR, Robinson RG. The sensitivity and specificity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in screening for post-stroke depression. Int J Psychiatry Med 1988; 18: 169-181.
23. Shinar D, Gross CR, Price TR, Banko M, Bolduc PL, Robinson RG. Screening for depression in stroke patients: The reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Stroke 1986; 17: 241-245.
24. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, et al. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 1991; 337: 1521-1526.
25. Van Swieten JC, Koudstall PJ, Visser MC, et al. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19: 604-607.
26. Granger CV, Seltzer GB, Fishbein CF. Chapter 9: The completed stroke. In: Primary Care of the Functionally Disabled, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1987; 191-209.
27. Brott T, Adams HP, Olinger CP, et al. Measurement of acute cerebral infarction: A clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989; 20: 864-870.
28. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30: 1538-1541.
29. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Motor Component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: The impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epid 2002; 55: 922-928.
30. Radloff LS, Locke BZ. Chapter 9: The community mental health assessment survey and the CES-D scale. In: Weissman MM, Myers JK, Ross CE (eds), Community Surveys of Psychiatric Disorders, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1986; 177-189.
31. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Chapter 10: Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; 169-182.
32. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189.
33. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985; 28: 542-547.
34. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988; 19-74.
35. Curran D, Fayers PM, Molenberghs G, Machin D. Chapter 14: Analysis of incomplete quality of life data in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; 249-280.
36. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of quality of life estimates for stroke. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 31(3): 191-200.
37. de Vries SO, Kuipers WD, Hunink MG. Intermittent claudication: Symptom severity versus health values. J Vasc Surg 1998; 27(3): 422-430.
38. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor M. A comparison of preference-based health status tools in patients with musculoskeletal disease. Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the Euroqol Group, 6-7 September, 2001, Copenhagen Denmark.
39. Hollingworth W, Mackenzie R, Todd CJ, Dixon AK. Measuring changes in quality of life following magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: SF-36, EuroQol or Rosser index? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 325-334.
40. Stavem K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res 1999; 8(1): 45-54.
41. Stavem K. Quality of life in epilepsy: Comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Res 1998; 29(3): 201-209.
42. Juniper EF, Norman GR, Cox FM, Roberts JN. Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma. Eur Respir J 2001; 18(1): 38-44.
43. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9(6): 591-601.
44. Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke 1996; 27: 1812-1816.
45. Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, et al. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 740-745.
46. Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, et al. Quality of life measurement after stroke: Uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke 2002; 33: 1348-1356.
47. Dorman PJ, Slattery JM, Farrell B, et al. A randomized comparison of the EuroQol and SF-36 after stroke. Br Med J 1997; 315: 461.
48. Dorman PJ, Slattery JM, Farrell B, et al. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. Stroke 1998; 29: 63-68.
49. Mathias SD, Bates MM, Pasta DJ, et al. Use of the Health Utilities Index with stroke patients and their caregivers. Stroke 1997; 28(10): 1888-1894.
50. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: Evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care 2000; 38(3): 290-299.
51. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39(10): 1039-1047.
52. Samsa GP, Edelman D, Rothman ML. et al. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15(2): 141-155.
53. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 344-349.
54. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally clinically important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.' Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4.
55. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, et al. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999; 38: 870-877.
56. Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, et al. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax 1997; 52: 879-887.
57. Jenkinson C, Stradling J, Petersen S. Comparison of three measures of quality of life outcome in the evaluation of continuous positive airways pressure therapy for sleep apnoea. J Sleep Res 1997; 6: 199-204.
58. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 900-908.
59. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-468.
60. Wyrwich KW, Wolinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intraindividual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 2000; 6(1): 39-49.
61. Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507-1515.