An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions

European Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 237-249

  Barton, Garry R ^a   Sach, Tracey H ^a   Doherty, Michael ^a   Avery, Anthony J ^a   Jenkinson, Claire ^a   Muir, Kenneth R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Construct validity; EQ 5D; Health related quality of life; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASTHMA; BACKACHE; BODY MASS; CIGARETTE SMOKING; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH STATUS; HEART DISEASE; HIP DISEASE; HUMAN; KNEE PAIN; LIFESTYLE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEOPLASM; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RACE DIFFERENCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SHORT FORM 36; STROKE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 46949090329     PISSN: 16187598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-007-0068-z     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Streiner, D.L., Norman, G.R.: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, New York (2003)
2. Brazier, J.E., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., Booth, A.: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 3, 1-164 (1999)
3. Brooks, R.: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53-72 (1996)
4. Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271-292 (2002)
5. Marra, C.A., Esdaile, J.M., Guh, D., Kopec, J.A., Brazier, J.E., Koehler, B.E., Chalmers, A., Anis A.H.: A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med. Care 42, 1125-1131 (2004)
6. Petrou, S., Hockley, C.: An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 14, 1169-1189 (2005)
7. Macran, S., Weatherly, H., Kind, P.: Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med. Care 41, 218-231 (2003)
8. Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual. Life Res. 7, 155-166 (1998)
9. Lamers, L.M., Bouwmans, C.A.M., van Straten, A., Donker, M.C.H., Hakkaart, L.: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 15, 1229-1236 (2006)
10. Johnson, J.A., Pickard, A.S.: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med. Care 38, 115-121 (2000)
11. Luo, N., Johnson, J.A., Shaw, J.W., Feeny, D., Coons, S.J.: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med. Care 43, 1078-1086 (2005)
12. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Williams, A.: Variations in population health status: results from a UK national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316, 736-741 (1998)
13. Lubetkin, E.I., Jia, H., Gold, M.R.: Construct validity of the EQ-5D in low-income Chinese American primary care patients. Qual. Life Res. 13, 1459-1468 (2004)
14. Sullivan, P.W., Lawence, W.F., Ghushchyan, V.: A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care 43, 736-749 (2005)
15. Lubetkin, E.I., Jia, H., Franks, P., Gold, M.R.: Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Qual. Life Res. 14, 2187-2196 (2005)
16. Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.: The MOS 36 item short-form health survey: conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473-483 (1992)
17. Brazier, J.E.: The SF-36 health survey questionnaire-a tool for economists. Health Econ. 2, 213-215 (1993)
18. Johnson, J.A., Connolly, M., Zuberbuhler, P., Brown, N.E.: Health-related quality of life for adults with cystic fibrosis: a regression approach to assessing the impact of recombinant human DNase. Pharmacotherapy 20, 1167-1174 (2000)
19. Jia, H., Lubetkin, E.I.: The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general adult US population. J Public Health (Oxf) 27, 156-164 (2005)
20. Macran, S.: The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life (Discussion Paper 190). University of York: Centre for Health Economics (2004)
21. Office for National Statistics: Standard occupational classification 2000 (Volume 2): the coding index. The Stationery Office, London (2000)
22. Claxton, K.: The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J. Health Econ. 18, 341-364 (1999)
23. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H.: Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinical important difference. Control Clin. Trials 10, 407-415 (1989)
24. Walters S.J., Brazier J.E.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D, SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14, 1523-1532 (2005)
25. Marra C.A., Woolcott J.C., Kopec J.A., Shojania K., Offer R., Brazier J.E., Esdaile J.M., Anis A.H.: A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1571-1582 (2005)
26. Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E.: What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 4 (2003)
27. WHO: Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on Obesity. WHO, Geneva (2001)
28. National Institutes of Health: Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in Adults-the evidence report. Obes. Res. 6, 51S-209S (1998)
29. Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5, 1-30 (1986)
30. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: A social tariff for the EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey (Discussion Paper 138). University of York:Centre for Health Economics (1995)
31. Gerard, K., Nicholson, T., Mullee, M., Mehta, R., Roderick, P.: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 91-102 (2004)
32. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ. 15, 209-231 (1996)
33. Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M.: Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 943-950 (1999)
34. Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873-884 (2004)
35. Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.J.: Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 10, 779-787 (2001)
36. Walters, S.J., Campbell, M.J.: The use of bootstrap methods for analysing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF-36). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2, 70 (2004)
37. Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Thomson South-Western, Mason (2006)
38. Conner-Spady, B., Suarez-Almazor, M.E.: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care. 41, 791-801 (2003)
39. Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, A.Q.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 103-105 (2004)
40. Longworth, L., Bryan, S.: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 12, 1061-1067 (2003)
41. Pickard, A.S., Johnson, J.A., Feeny, D.H.: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual. Life Res. 14, 207-219 (2005)
42. Lenert, L., Kaplan, R.M.: Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med. Care 38(Supplement 2), 138-150 (2000)
43. Drummond, M.: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 33, 344-349 (2001)
44. Hurst, N.P., Kind, P., Ruta, D., Hunter, M., Stubbings, A.: Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Rheumatology (Oxford) 36, 551-559 (1997)
45. Sach, T.H., Barton, G.R.: Interpreting parental proxy reports of (health-related) quality of life for children with unilateral cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 17, 435-445 (2007)
46. Maddigan, S.L., Feeny, D.H., Johnson, J.A.: Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1311-1320 (2005)
47. Wu, S.C., Li, C.Y., Ke, D.S.: The agreement between self-reporting and clinical diagnosis for selected medical conditions among the elderly in Taiwan. Public Health 114, 137-142 (2000)
48. Cartwright, A.: Who responds to postal questionnaires? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 40, 267-273 (1986)
49. McColl, E., Jacoby, A., Thomas, L., Soutter, J., Bamford, C., Steen, N., Thomas, R., Harvey, E., Garratt, A., Bond, J.: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1-256 (2001)
50. Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M.J., Jones, D.R.: Criteria for assessing patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol. Assess. 2(14), 1-74 (1998)