Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 273-286

  Feeny, David ^a   Spritzer, Karen ^b   Hays, Ron D ^b   Liu, Honghu ^b   Ganiats, Theodore G ^c   Kaplan, Robert M ^b   Palta, Mari ^d   Fryback, Dennis G ^d  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

access to care; education; family medicine; outcomes research; performance measurement; population based studies; preventive medicine screening; preventive services; primary care; psychometric methods scaling; public health; randomized trial methodology; risk factor evaluation; scale development validation; severity of illness measures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HEART FAILURE; HUMAN; LENS IMPLANT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH SURVEYS; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; LENSES, INTRAOCULAR; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84859303471     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11418671     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001 ; 33 (5). 337-43 (Pubitemid 32675374)
2. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 ; 1 (1). 54
3. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2 nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press; 1996. p 309-22. Spilker B, ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press ; 1996: 309-22.
4. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002 ; 21 (2). 271-92 (Pubitemid 34143147)
5. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004 ; 42 (9). 851-9 (Pubitemid 39456916)
6. Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim JS. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (1). 5-15
7. Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG. Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality-of-life measures used in utility assessment: evidence from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2010 ; 48 (8). 718-25
8. Feeny DH Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p 405-29. Fayers P Hays R, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2005: 405-29.
9. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004 ; 42 (11). 1125-31 (Pubitemid 39472119)
10. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, et al. Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 ; 60 (6). 616-24 (Pubitemid 46711077)
11. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005 ; 60 (7). 1571-82 (Pubitemid 40126441)
12. Feeny DH, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004 ; 13 (10). 1659-70 (Pubitemid 41215246)
13. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care. 2005 ; 43 (11). 1078-86 (Pubitemid 41587593)
14. Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality of life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007 ; 45 (12). 1162-70
15. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003 ; 12 (4). 349-62 (Pubitemid 36612040)
16. Marra CA, Rashidi AA, Guh D, et al. Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients?. Qual Life Res. 2005 ; 14 (5). 1333-44 (Pubitemid 40895755)
17. Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health. 2004 ; 7 (5). 602-9 (Pubitemid 39390840)
18. McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, Jette AM, Grove MR, Weinstein JN. A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (2). 270-80
19. Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart-failure patients were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 ; 64 (5). 497-506
20. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 119 (7). 1050-8 (Pubitemid 32652197)
21. Varma R, Wu J, Chong K, Azen SP, Hays RD. Impact of severity and bilaterality of visual impairment on health-related quality of life. Ophthalmology. 2006 ; 113 (10). 1846-53 (Pubitemid 44442430)
22. McDonnell PJ, Mangione C, Lee P, et al. Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2003 ; 110 (12). 2302-9 (Pubitemid 37485158)
23. Rector TS. A conceptual model of quality of life in relation to heart failure. J Card Fail. 2005 ; 11 (3). 173-6 (Pubitemid 40462418)
24. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Patients' self-assessment of their congestive heart failure: part II. Content, reliability and validity of a new measure, The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Heart Fail. 1987 ; 3: 198-209
25. Rector TS, Francis GS, Cohn JN. Patients' self-assessment of their congestive heart failure: part 1. Patient perceived dysfunction and its poor correlation with maximal exercise tests. Heart Fail. 1987 ; 3: 192-6
26. Garin O, Ferrer M, Pont A, et al. Disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires for heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Qual Life Res. 2009 ; 18 (1). 71-85
27. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005 ; 43 (3). 203-20 (Pubitemid 40353904)
28. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996 ; 34 (7). 702-22 (Pubitemid 126433265)
29. Feeny DH, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002 ; 40 (2). 113-28
30. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976 ; 11 (4). 478-507 (Pubitemid 8111230)
31. Kaplan RM, Frosch DL. Decision making in medicine and health care. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005 ; 1: 525-56 (Pubitemid 43843961)
32. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Patterson TL, et al. Validity of the Quality of Well-Being Scale for persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection. HNRC Group. HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center. Psychosom Med. 1995 ; 57 (2). 138-47
33. Idler EL, Benyamini Y. Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav. 1997 ; 38 (1). 21-37 (Pubitemid 127454450)
34. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 ; 34 (3). 220-33 (Pubitemid 126433231)
35. Revicki D, Rentz AM, Kowalski JW, Chen WH. Assessment of unidimensionality for the Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index (VFQ-UI) items in patients with central vision loss. Qual Life Res. 2010 ; 19 (Suppl 1). 49-50
36. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 ; 77 (4). 371-83 (Pubitemid 34260746)
37. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, et al. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009 ; 18 (9). 1195-205
38. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2000 ; 9 (8). 887-900 (Pubitemid 32210183)
39. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 ; 61 (2). 102-9
40. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005 ; 2 (1). 63-7 (Pubitemid 40776225)
41. Leidy NK, Wyrwich KW. Bridging the gap: using triangulation methodology to estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). COPD. 2005 ; 2 (1). 157-65 (Pubitemid 40776237)
42. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 ; 63 (5). 524-34
43. Beaton DE, van Eerd D, Smith P, et al. Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 ; 64 (5). 487-96
44. Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2 nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; 1988:
45. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001 ; 33 (5). 344-9 (Pubitemid 32675375)
46. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 ; 1 ( 4 ):
47. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005 ; 14 (6). 1523-32 (Pubitemid 40848233)
48. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 ; 5 70:
49. Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, Bowker SL, et al. A Canadian consensus for the standardized evaluation of quality improvement interventions in type 2 diabetes. Can J Diabetes. 2005 ; 29 (3). 220-9 (Pubitemid 43741138)
50. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 ; 15 (2). 141-55 (Pubitemid 29093257)
51. Kaplan RM. The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD. 2005 ; 2 (1). 91-7 (Pubitemid 40776228)
52. 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). 290-9
53. Groessl EJ, Kaplan RM, Barrett-Connor E, Ganiats TG. Body mass index and quality of well-being in a community of older adults. Am J Prev Med. 2004 ; 26 (2). 126-9 (Pubitemid 38134439)
54. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, Tountas Y, Niakas D. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009 ; 18 (1). 87-97
55. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005 ; 43 (7). 736-49 (Pubitemid 40993769)
56. Khanna D, Furst DE, Wong WK, et al. Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2007 ; 16 (6). 1083-92 (Pubitemid 47174892)
57. Globe DR, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R. The impact of visual impairment on self-reported visual functioning in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2004 ; 111 (6). 1141-9 (Pubitemid 38736993)
58. Andres AM, Marzo PF. Chance-corrected measures of reliability and validity in K x K tables. Stat Methods Med Res. 2005 ; 14 (5). 473-92
59. Altman DG Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall ; 1991:
60. Browne JP, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey JD, Lamping DL, Black N. Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 ; 63 (8). 865-74
61. Pressler SJ, Eckert GJ, Morrison GC, Murray MD, Oldridge NB. Evaluation of the Health Utilities Index Mark-3 in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2011 ; 17 (2). 143-50
62. Palta M, Chen HY, Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Cherepanov D, Fryback DG. Standard error of measurement of five health utility indexes across the range of health for use in estimating reliability and responsiveness. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (2). 260-9
63. Jones CA, Feeny DH. Agreement between patient and proxy responses of health-related quality of life after hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 ; 53 (7). 1227-33 (Pubitemid 41632527)
64. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke. 2004 ; 35 (2). 607-12 (Pubitemid 38174458)
65. Balaban DJ, Sagi PC, Goldfarb NI, Nettler S. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: a comparison to general population weights. Med Care. 1986 ; 24 (11). 973-80
66. Hector RD, Anderson JP, Paul RC, Weiss RE, Hays RD, Kaplan RM. Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. Qual Life Res. 2010 ; 19 (5). 729-38
67. Wang Q, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R. How robust is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 utility function?. Med Decis Making. 2002 ; 22 (4). 350-8 (Pubitemid 34791322)
68. Le Gales C, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman S, Slama PR. Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002 ; 5 (1). 41-51 (Pubitemid 41450999)
69. Raat H, Bonsel GJ, Hoogeveen WC, Essink-Bot ML. Feasibility and reliability of a mailed questionnaire to obtain visual analogue scale valuations for health states defined by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Med Care. 2004 ; 42 (1). 13-8
70. Ruiz M, Rejas J, Soto J, Pardo A, Rebollo I. [Adaptation and validation of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 into Spanish and correction norms for Spanish population]. Med Clin (Barc). 2003 ; 120 (3). 89-96 (Pubitemid 36231016)
71. Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui KK. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof. 2005 ; 28 (2). 160-71 (Pubitemid 40628905)
72. McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 ; 11 (2). 163-9