Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: Is the patient experience adequately represented?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 10-19

  Tordrup, David ^a   Mossman, Jean ^b   Kanavos, Panos ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b European Brain Council   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health technology assessment; Patient participation; QALY; Responsiveness

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; SURVEYS; HEALTH; SILICON;

EQ-5D; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QALY; RESPONSIVENESS; EXTRACTING INFORMATION; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

HEALTH; QUALITY CONTROL;

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL CHANGE; COLORECTAL CANCER; DETERIORATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EQ 5D QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMUR NECK FRACTURE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LIVER METASTASIS; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WELLBEING; ACNE; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; METASTASIS; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; REIMBURSEMENT; SHORT FORM 36; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

HUMANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84902134915     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000640     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: The role of health technology assessment in the European Union. London: European Observatory on European Health Systems and Policies; 2008.
2. Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:36-42. (Pubitemid 46648298)
3. NICE. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/88A/F2/SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL.pdf (accessed September 13, 2012).
4. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736-741. (Pubitemid 28121072)
5. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334-340.
6. INAHTA. INAHTA survey on involvement of consumers in HTA. 2005. http://www.inahta.org/upload/About percent20INAHTA/Survey- Consumers-in-HTA- Survey-nov2006.pdf (accessed September 20, 2011).
7. INAHTA. Involvement of consumers in the HTA activities of INAHTA members. 2011. http://www.inahta.org/News/Survey-Report-Involvement-of-consumers-in-The- HTA-Activities-of-INAHTAmembers-/ (accessed September 21, 2011).
8. Lee A, Sinding LS. A review of organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs published by INAHTA members. Danish Health Technol Assess. 2007;9.
9. Hailey D. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment. 2005. http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR21.pdf (accessed October 11, 2011).
10. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. New York: Springer; 2007.
11. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preferencebased single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115-1128. (Pubitemid 28527167)
12. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(Suppl):S142-S158.
13. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care.1997:1095-1108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
14. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293-307.
15. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
16. Gunther OH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC, Konig H-H. The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression: A comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning. J Affect Disord. 2008;105:81-91. (Pubitemid 350236353)
17. Pickard SA, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic healthrelated quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207-219. (Pubitemid 40249095)
18. Burton M,Walters S, SalehM, Brazer J. An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1731-1743.
19. Solberg T, Olsen J-A, Ingebrigtsen T, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:1000-1007. (Pubitemid 41798052)
20. Krabbe PFM, Peerenboom L, Langenhoff BS, Ruers TJM. Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the diseasespecific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:1247-1253. (Pubitemid 39149608)
21. Conner-Spady B, Cumming C, Nabholtz J-M, et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:479-486. (Pubitemid 34019181)
22. Tidermark J, Bergstrom G, Svensson O, et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1069-1079. (Pubitemid 37386634)
23. Tidermark J, Bergstrom G. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:321-330. (Pubitemid 46088364)
24. Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:273-286.
25. Wu AW, Jacobson DL, Frick KD, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the EuroQol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:273-282. (Pubitemid 34553507)
26. van Asselt A, Dirksen C, Arntz A, et al. The EQ-5D: A useful quality of life measure in borderline personality disorder? Eur Psychiatry. 2009;24:79-85.
27. Goossens L, Nivens M, Sachs P, et al. Is the EQ-5D responsive to recovery from a moderate COPD exacerbation? Respir Med. 2011;105:1195-1202.
28. Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ. 2009;18:363-372.
29. Stavem K, Frøland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:971-980. (Pubitemid 40685221)
30. Maes I, Joore M, Cima R, et al. Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: A comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III. Ear Hear. 2011;32:428-435.
31. Haywood K, Garratt A, Lall R, et al. EuroQol EQ-5D and conditionspecific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:475-483.
32. Grutters J, Joore M, van der Horst F, et al. Choosing between measures: Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1439-1449. (Pubitemid 47459877)
33. Kimman M, Dirksen C, Lambin P, Boersma L. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:11.
34. Olerud P, Tidermark J, Ponzer S, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:1200-1206.
35. Staerkle R, Villiger P. Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2011;98:148-155.
36. Stark R, Reitmeir P, Leidl R,KonigH.Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16:42-51.
37. Streiner DL. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
38. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, et al. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:870-877. (Pubitemid 29507370)
39. Eurich D, Johnson J, Reid K, Spertus J. Assessing responsiveness of generic and specific health related quality of lifemeasures in heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:89.
40. Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, et al. Responsiveness of diseasespecific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:509-522. (Pubitemid 46363692)
41. Alibhai SMH, Naglie G, Nam R, et al. Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3318-3327. (Pubitemid 46606266)
42. Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, et al. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1993;269:2650-2658. (Pubitemid 23147702)
43. Riazi A, Cano SJ, Cooper JM, et al. Coordinating outcomes measurement in ataxia research: Do some widely used generic rating scales tick the boxes? Mov Disord. 2006;21:1396-1403. (Pubitemid 44613291)
44. Klassen AF, Newton JN,Mallon E.Measuring quality of life in people referred for specialist care of acne: Comparing generic and disease-specific measures. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43:229-233. (Pubitemid 30625998)
45. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Rheumatology (Oxford). 1997;36:551-559.
46. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of threemeasurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci. 1976;10:129-136.
47. Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2011;21:1205-1216.
48. Fankhauser C, Mutter U, Aghayev E, Mannion A. Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:101-114.
49. Nosyk B, Sun H, Bansback N, et al. The concurrent validity and responsiveness of the health utilities index (HUI 3) among patients with advanced HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:815-824.
50. Luo N, Ng W, Lau P, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:565-569.
51. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1991;6:234-242.
52. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727-1736.
53. EuroQol. Status update: 5L Valuation Studies. EuroQol Group; 2013. http://www.euroqol.org/news-list/article/status-update-5l-valuationstudies. html (accessed August 6, 2013).
54. Stolk EA,Busschbach JJV.Validity and feasibility of the use of conditionspecific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:363-371. (Pubitemid 36609881)
55. Spilker B,Molinek FR Jr, Johnston KA, et al. Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care. 1990;28:DS1-DS77.
56. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, et al. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45:259-263.
57. EuroQol. EQ-5D-3L health questionnaire sample. EuroQol Group; 1990. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user-upload/Documenten/PDF/ Products/Sample-UK-English-EQ-5D-3L.pdf (accessed July 16, 2013).
58. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Ricci J-F, Bracco A. Performance of the EQ-5D in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Value Health. 2006;9:90-97. (Pubitemid 44044741)
59. Frihagen F, Grotle M, Madsen J, et al. Outcome after femoral neck fractures: Acomparison of HarrisHip Score, Eq-5d and Barthel Index. Injury. 2008;39:1147-1156.
60. Garratt A, Brealey S, Robling M, et al. Development of the Knee Quality of Life (KQoL-26) 26-item questionnaire: Data quality, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:48.
61. Gerhards SAH, Huibers MJH, Theunissen KATM, et al. The responsiveness of quality of life utilities to change in depression: A comparison of instruments (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and DFD). Value Health. 2011;14:732-739.
62. Gunther O, Roick C, Angermeyer M, Konig H. Responsiveness of EQ-5D utility indices in alcohol-dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;92:291-295. (Pubitemid 350213250)
63. HarrisonM,Davies L, Bansback N, et al. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patientswith inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1195-1205.
64. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Dziedzic K, Dawes PT. Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis:Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology. 2002;41:1380-1387. (Pubitemid 36004314)
65. Kunz S. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in a study of people with mild to moderate dementia. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:425-434.
66. lglesias CP, Birks Y, Nelson EA, et al. Quality of life of people with venous leg ulcers: A comparison of the discriminative and responsive characteristics of two generic and a disease specific instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1705-1718. (Pubitemid 40978479)
67. Marra CA, Rashidi AA, Guh D, et al. Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients? Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1333-1344. (Pubitemid 40895755)
68. Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:485-495.
69. Paterson C, Langan CE,McKaig GA, et al. Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Qual Life Res. 2000;9:521-527. (Pubitemid 32009862)
70. Shikiar R, Willian M, Okun M, et al. The validity and responsiveness of three quality of life measures in the assessment of psoriasis patients: Results of a phase II study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:71.