The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Mulhern, Brendan ^a   Meadows, Keith ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b DHP Research and Consultancy Bloxham Mill Business Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

DHP; EQ 5D; Psychometrics; SF 6D; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEPRESSION; DIABETES HEALTH PROFILE 18; DISEASE SEVERITY; EFFECT SIZE; EUROQOL 5 DIMENSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL CONDITION DETERIORATION; GENERAL CONDITION IMPROVEMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; KNOWN GROUP VALIDITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PHYSICAL MOBILITY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF CARE; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 6 DIMENSION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899686338     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-42     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Kohen D, Burgess AP, Catalan J, Lant A. The role of anxiety and depression in quality of life and symptom reporting in people with diabetes mellitus. Qual Life Res 1998, 1998(7):197-204.
2. Polonsky WH. Emotional and quality of life aspects of diabetes management. Curr Diabetes Rev 2002, 2:153.
3. Wexler DJ, Grant RW, Wittenberg E, Bosch JL, Cagliero E, Delahanty L, Blais MA, Meigs JB. Correlates of health related quality of life in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2006, 2006(49):1489-1497.
4. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37(1):53-72. 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6, 10158943.
5. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108. 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002, 9366889.
6. 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):271-292. 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8, 11939242.
7. Brazier JE, Roberts J. Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care 2004, 42(9):851-859. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d, 15319610.
8. Meadows K, Abrams C, Sandaek A. Adaptation of the diabetes health profile (DHP-1) for use with patients with type2 diabetes mellitus: psychometric evaluation and cross-cultural comparison. Diabet Med 2000, 17:572-580. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00322.x, 11073178.
9. Peters M, Crocker H, Dummett S, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R. Patient-reported outcomes in long term conditions: a cohort survey in England. Qual Life Res 2013, S103.
10. Janssen M, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2011, 28(4):393-413.
11. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, Arvanitaki E, Papadopoulos AA, Niakas D. Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. Eur J Health Econ 2012, 13(1):111-120. 10.1007/s10198-010-0290-y, 21132558.
12. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, London: NICE, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.
13. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) 2008, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
14. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada 2006, Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 3, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
15. Meadows KA, Steen N, McColl E, Eccles M, Shiels C, Hewison J, Hutchinson A. The Diabetes Health Profile (DHP): a new instrument for assessing the psychosocial profile of insulin requiring patients - development and psychometric evaluation. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:242-254. 10.1007/BF00434746, 8998493.
16. Erpelding ML, Boini S, Fagot-Campagna A, Mesbah M, Chwalow J, Penfornis A, Coliche V, Mollet T, Meadows K, Briançon S. Health related quality of life reference values (DHP) in people with diabetes living in France - entred study, 2001-2003. Journal Bulletin Épidémiologique Hebdomadaire 2009, 34:368-371.
17. Hippisley-Cox J, Yates J, Pringle M. Sex inequalities in access to care for patients with diabetes in primary care: questionnaire survey. Brit J Gen Pract 2006, 56(526):342-348.
18. Farr A, Phillips CJ, Davies S, Morgan S. Changes in health status of diabetic patients in Bridgend - Final Report 2010, Swansea: University of Swansea.
19. Ruddock S, Fosbury J, Smith A, Meadows K, Crown A. Measuring psychological morbidity for diabetes commissioning: a cross-sectional survey of patients attending a secondary care diabetes clinic. Practical Diabetes International 2010, 27(1):22-26.
20. Meadows K. Scoring the DHP-18 2010, DHP Research and Consultancy.
21. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2.
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
23. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011, 20(10):1727-1736. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x, 3220807, 21479777.
24. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004, 13(9):873-884. 10.1002/hec.866, 15362179.
25. Whitehurst D, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be?. Value Health 2011, 14(4):531-538. 10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002, 21315635.
26. Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, Brazier J. Using preference based measures in mental health conditions: The psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D 2013, HEDS Discussion paper, in press.
27. Brazier JE, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, O'Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G. Validating generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and estimating mapping functions for widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess 2014, in press.