Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: a comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 25, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 2481-2496

  Whitehurst, David G T ^a,b,c   Mittmann, Nicole ^d,e   Noonan, Vanessa K ^f   Dvorak, Marcel F ^b,f   Bryan, Stirling ^b,c,g  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d Canada   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f RICK HANSEN INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Disability; Health state valuation; Health related quality of life; Quality adjusted life years; Spinal cord injury; Utility measurement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE 8 DIMENSION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EUROQOL 5 DIMENSION 5L; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 6 DIMENSION; SPINAL CORD INJURY; WALKING; INJURIES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WALKING;

EID: 84964317468     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1297-3     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Neumann, P., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.
2. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
4. Statistics Canada. (2011). Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2010 Annual Component surveys. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
5. Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute Utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 41–57). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
6. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.
7. Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.
8. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.
9. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.
10. Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.
11. Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 328–336.
12. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224.
13. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instruments. Melbourne (Australia): Centre for Health Economics. Accessed August 31, 2015. http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolinstruments.
14. Kaplan, R. M., Anderson, J. P., & Ganiats, T. G. (1993). The Quality of Well-being Scale: Rationale for a single quality of life index. In S. R. Walker & R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: Key issues in the 1990s (pp. 65–94). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J. (2010). Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15.
16. Whitehurst, D. G. T., Bryan, S., & Lewis, M. (2011). Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), E34–E44.
17. Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2008). Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 485–495.
18. Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.
19. Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., & Cairns, J. (2009). SF-6D versus EQ-5D: Reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. The European Journal of Health Economics, 10, 15–23.
20. Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). 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, 14(4), 531–538.
21. Konerding, U., Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2009). The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: What do they have in common? Quality of Life Research, 18, 1249–1261.
22. Espallargues, M., Czoski-Murray, C. J., Bansback, N. J., Carlton, J., Lewis, G. M., Hughes, L. A., et al. (2005). The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 46(11), 4016–4023.
23. Whitehurst, D. G. T., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F. S., & Bryan, S. (2012). A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord, 50(9), 646–654.
24. Andresen, E. M., Fouts, B. S., Romeis, J. C., & Brownson, C. A. (1999). Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 877–884.
25. Lee, B. B., Simpson, J. M., King, M. T., Haran, M. J., & Marial, O. (2009). The SF-36 walk-wheel: A simple modification of the SF-36 physical domain improves its responsiveness for measuring health status change in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47(1), 50–55.
26. Engel, L., Bryan, S., Evers, S. M., Dirksen, C. D., Noonan, V. K., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychometric properties of the SF-6D, a preference-based health-related quality of life measure, in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2383–2393.
27. Craven, C., Hitzig, S. L., & Mittmann, N. (2012). Impact of impairment and secondary health conditions on health preference among Canadians with chronic spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 35(5), 361–370.
28. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient, 7(1), 85–96.
29. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.
30. Seiber WJ, Groessl EJ, David KM, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM (2008) Quality of well being self-administered (QWB-SA) scale user’s manual. San Diego, CA: Health Services Research Center. Accessed August 31, 2015. https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf.
31. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2TM health survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric.
32. Whitehurst, D. G., Suryaprakash, N., Engel, L., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F., et al. (2014). Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 12, 50.
33. Noreau, L., Noonan, V. K., Cobb, J., Leblond, J., & Dumont, F. S. (2014). Spinal cord injury community survey: A national, comprehensive study to portray the lives of Canadians with spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 20(4), 249–264.
34. Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., & Hanmer, J. (2008). Revised SF-6D scoring programmes: A summary of improvements. PRO Newsletter, 40, 14–15.
35. Perreault, W. D. (1975). Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(4), 544–551.
36. Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study Group. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.
37. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.
38. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–427.
39. Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7(3), 301–317.
40. Hanmer, J., Cherepanov, D., Palta, M., Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Fryback, D. G. (2016). Health condition impacts in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey vary substantially by preference-based health index. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 264–274.
41. Heintz, E., Wiréhn, A. B., Peebo, B. B., Rosenqvist, U., & Levin, L. Å. (2012). QALY weights for diabetic retinopathy: A comparison of health state valuations with HUI-3, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and TTO. Value Health, 15(3), 475–484.
42. Joore, M., Brunenberg, D., Nelemans, P., Wouters, E., Kuijpers, P., Honig, A., et al. (2010). The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: Results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health, 13(2), 222–229.
43. Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205(5), 390–397.
44. Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304.
45. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 2045–2053.
46. Whitehurst, D. G., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health, 17(5), 570–577.
47. Hays, R. D., Siu, A. L., Keeler, E., Marshall, G. N., Kaplan, R. M., Simmons, S., et al. (1996). Long-term care residents’ preferences for health states on the quality of well-being scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(3), 254–261.
48. Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., & Longworth, L. (2015). An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health, 18(1), 52–60.
49. Tosh, J., Brazier, J., Evans, P., & Longworth, L. (2012). A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health, 15(1), 118–127.
50. Kaplan, R. M., Tally, S., Hays, R. D., Feeny, D., Ganiats, T. G., Palta, M., et al. (2011). Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(5), 497–506.
51. Feeny, D., Spritzer, K., Hays, R. D., Liu, H., Ganiats, T. G., Kaplan, R. M., et al. (2012). Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Medical Decision Making, 32(2), 273–286.