Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 147-159

  Richardson, Jeff ^a   Iezzi, Angelo ^a   Khan, Munir A ^a   Chen, Gang ^b   Maxwell, Aimee ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

cost utility analysis; multiattribute utility (MAU); sensitivity; validity

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MENTAL HEALTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MENTAL HEALTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84952929095     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15613522     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Wisloff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA,. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of the cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32 (4): 367-75.
2. Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, Saret CJ, Cohen JT,. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012. Value Health. 2015; 18 (2): 271-7.
3. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E,. Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Health Economics. San Diego: Elsevier Science; 2014. p 341-57.
4. Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG,. Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality of life measures used in utility assessment. Med Care. 2010; 48 (8): 718-25.
5. Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim J,. Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30 (1): 5-15.
6. 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.
7. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS,. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 1321-32.
8. Feeney D, Spritzer K, Hays R, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32 (2): 273-86.
9. Khanna D, Maranian P, Palta M, et al. Health-related quality of life in adults reporting arthritis: analysis from the National Health Management Study. Qual Life Res. 2011; 20 (7): 1131-40.
10. Lillegraven S, Kristiansen S, Kvien T,. Comparison of utility measures and their relationship with other health status measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 69 (10): 1762-7.
11. Sorensen J, Linde L, Ostergaard M, Hetland M,. Quality-adjusted life expectancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of index scores from EQ-5D, 15D, and SF-6D. Value Health. 2012; 15 (2): 334-9.
12. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, Arvanitaki E, Papdopoulos A, 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): 111-20.
13. Kuspinar A, Mayo N,. Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11: 71.
14. Kuspinar A, Mayo N,. A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in mutiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32 (8): 759-73.
15. Teckle P, Peacock S, McTaggart-Cowan H, et al. The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9: 106.
16. McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson A, Jette A, Grove MR, Weinstein J,. 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.
17. Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L,. A review of generic preference based measures of health related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012; 15: 118-27.
18. Groessl RJ, Liu L, Sklar M, Tally S, Kaplan R, Ganiats TG,. Measuring the impact of cataract surgery on generic and vision-specific quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2013; 22: 1405-14.
19. Yang Y, Longworth L, Brazier J,. An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment. Qual Life Res. 2013; 22 (10): 2813-28.
20. Pinto AM, Kupperman M, Nakagawa S, et al. Comparison and correlates of three preference-based health-related quality of life measures among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence. Qual Life Res. 2011; 20 (10): 1655-62.
21. Palta M, Chen HY, Kaplan R, Feeny D, Cherepanov D, Fryback DG,. Standard error of measurement of 5 health utility indexes across the range of health for use in estimating reliability and responsiveness. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31 (2): 260-9.
22. Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, Kind P, McGuire A, Nord E,. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009; 12 (1): S31-5.
23. Streiner D, Norman GR,. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
24. Cronbach J, Meehl P,. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955; 52: 281-302.
25. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA,. Why do multi attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and 'micro utility' effects. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24 (8): 2045-53.
26. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA,. The Self Time t (TTO) Instrument: Reliability and Survey Results. Research Paper 86. Melbourne (Australia): Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2014.
27. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH,. Measuring health status in arthritis: the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980; 23: 146-52.
28. Ware J, Sherbourne D,. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30 (6): 473-83.
29. Marks GB, Dunn SM, Woolcock AJ,. A scale for the measurement of quality of life in adults with asthma. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 45 (5): 461-72.
30. Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J,. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 167-76.
31. Rabin R, Oemar M, Oppe M, Janssen B, Herdman M,. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. Rotterdam (the Netherlands): EuroQoL Group. Available from: URL: http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html. Accessed 6 July 2015.
32. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012; 15: 708-15.
33. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J National Cancer Inst. 1993; 85 (5): 365-76.
34. Hicks S,. Case study: ONS measuring subjective wellbeing: The UK Office for National Statistics Experience. In: Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J, eds. World Happiness Report 2012. New York: The Earth Institute, Columbia University; 2012. Available from: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960. Accessed 30 April 2012.
35. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M,. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002; 21: 271-92.
36. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF,. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. 2nd ed. Sydney: Psychology Foundation; 1995.
37. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A,. Cross-National Comparison of Twelve Quality of Life Instruments: MIC Paper 1: Background, Questions, Instruments. Research Paper 76. Melbourne (Australia): Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2012. Available from: ULR: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/researchpaper76.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2013.
38. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G, et al. Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care. 2002; 40 (2): 113-28.
39. Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003; 60 (2): 184-89.
40. Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C,. Health status: types of validity and the index of wellbeing. Health Serv Res. 1976; 11 (4): 478-507.
41. Boyer JG, Earp JAL,. The development of an instrument for assessing the quality of life of people with diabetes. Med Care. 1997; 35 (5): 440-53.
42. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M,. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker S, Rosser R, eds. Quality of Life Assessment. Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer Academic; 1993.
43. Cox RM, Alexander GC,. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995; 19 (2): 176-86.
44. Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, Khan MA,. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D. Qual Life Res. 2014; 23 (8): 2395-404.
45. Höfer S, Lim L, Guyatt G, Oldridge N,. The MacNew Heart Disease health-related quality of life instrument: a summary. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004; 2 (3): 1-8.
46. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A,. Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments'. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35 (3): 276-91.
47. AQoL. Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). 2015. Available from: URL: http://www.aqol.com.au.cited 28 2015.