The responsiveness of the EQ-5D and time trade-off scores in schizophrenia, affective disorders, and alcohol addiction

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Sonntag, Michael ^a   König, Hans Helmut ^a   Konnopka, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Affective disorders; Alcohol addiction; EQ 5D; Responsiveness; Schizophrenia; TTO

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; EFFECT SIZE; EQ 5D INDEX; EQ 5D VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE; FEMALE; GLOBAL SEVERITY INDEX; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOOD DISORDER; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SCORING SYSTEM; TIME TRADE OFF SCORE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WHO QUALITY OF LIFE BREF SCORE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; MIDDLE AGED; MOOD DISORDERS; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; PSYCHOTHERAPY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; ALCOHOLISM; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOOD DISORDERS; PSYCHOMETRICS; PSYCHOTHERAPY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84946208111     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0315-4     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:i-iv. 1-164.
2. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
3. Sonntag M, König HH, Konnopka A. The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1131-54.
4. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales : a practical guide to their development and use. 4th edn. Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
5. Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Naglie G. Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:509-22.
6. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Carotti M. Responsiveness of health status measures and utility-based methods in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21:478-87.
7. Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, Feeny D, Ganiats TG, Palta M, et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:497-506.
8. Gregor JC, McDonald JW, Klar N, Wall R, Atkinson K, Lamba B, et al. An evaluation of utility measurement in Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 1997;3:265-76.
9. 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;17:485-95.
10. Stavem K, Froland 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;14:971-80.
11. Gerhards SA, Huibers MJ, Theunissen KA, de Graaf LE, Widdershoven GA, Evers SM. The responsiveness of quality of life utilities to change in depression: a comparison of instruments (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and DFD). Value Health. 2011;14:732-9.
12. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15:1229-36.
13. McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, Schene A, Koeter M, Amaddeo F, et al. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009;12:27-31.
14. Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205:236-43.
15. Roick C, Heinrich S, Deister A, Zeichner D, Birker T, Heider D, et al. [The regional psychiatry budget: costs and effects of a new multisector financing model for psychiatric care]. Psychiatr Prax. 2008;35:279-85.
16. Dimdi. [ICD-10-GM 2005 - International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems- German Modification 10. Revision, Version 2005]. Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2005.
17. Group EQ. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
18. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141-54.
19. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:124-30.
20. Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, Stevens K. Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2003;3:293-302.
21. Brazier J, McCabe C. 'Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin. A response: 'yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?'. Health Econ. 2007;16:645-7. discussion 649-651.
22. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:329-34.
23. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999;8:41-51.
24. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-108.
25. Trompenaars FJ, Masthoff ED, Van Heck GL, Hodiamont PP, De Vries J. Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:151-60.
26. Mas-Exposito L, Amador-Campos JA, Gomez-Benito J, Lalucat-Jo L, Research Group on Severe Mental D. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale Brief Version: a validation study in patients with schizophrenia. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1079-89.
27. Herrman H, Hawthorne G, Thomas R. Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37:510-8.
28. Derogatis L. SCL-90-R: administration, scoring and procedures manual. Minneapolis (MN): National Computer Systems; 1994.
29. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582-92.
30. Sloan JA, Cella D, Hays RD. Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1217-9.
31. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, N.J; 1988.
32. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459-68.
33. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
34. 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;12:349-62.
35. Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:815-22.
36. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395-407.
37. Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hodgkinson V, Evley R, Hardman JG. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value Health. 2013;16:124-32.
38. Konnopka A, Gunther OH, Angermeyer MC, Konig HH. [Discriminative ability, construct validity and sensitivity to change of the EQ-5D quality of life questionnaire in paranoid schizophrenia]. Psychiatr Prax. 2006;33:330-6.
39. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:524-34.
40. de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:804-5. author reply 806.
41. Mulhern B, Rowen D, Brazier J, Smith S, Romeo R, Tait R, et al. Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:v-xv. 1-140.
42. König HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC. [Health Status of the German population: results of a representative survey using the EuroQol questionnaire]. Gesundheitswesen. 2005;67:173-82.
43. Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14 Suppl 1:S53-64.