Abstract
Purpose
To explore the influence of descriptive differences in items evaluating mobility on index scores generated from two generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments.
Methods
The study examined cross-sectional data from a postal survey of individuals receiving assisted ventilation in two state/province-wide home mechanical ventilation services, one in British Columbia, Canada and the other in Victoria, Australia. The Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D) and the EQ-5D-5L were included in the data collection. Graphical illustrations, descriptive statistics, and measures of agreement [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots] were examined using index scores derived from both instruments. Analyses were performed on the full sample as well as subgroups defined according to respondents’ self-reported ability to walk.
Results
Of 868 individuals receiving assisted ventilation, 481 (55.4%) completed the questionnaire. Mean index scores were 0.581 (AQoL-8D) and 0.566 (EQ-5D-5L) with ‘moderate’ agreement demonstrated between the two instruments (ICC = 0.642). One hundred fifty-nine (33.1%) reported level 5 (‘I am unable to walk about’) on the EQ-5D-5L Mobility item. The walking status of respondents had a marked influence on the comparability of index scores, with a larger mean difference (0.206) and ‘slight’ agreement (ICC = 0.386) observed when the non-ambulant subgroup was evaluated separately.
Conclusions
This study provides further evidence that between-measure discrepancies between preference-based HRQoL instruments are related in part to the framing of mobility-related items. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the responsiveness of preference-based HRQoL instruments in cohorts that include non-ambulant individuals.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Terwee, C. B., Bot SDM, de Boer, M. R., van der Windt D a WM, Knol, D. L., & Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health economics, 8, 41–51.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Process and methods guides: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013;34–5. http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.5. 2015.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies, 3rd Edition. 2006.
Australian Government: Department of Health and Aging. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. 2009.
Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007) Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guyatt, G. H., Veldhuyzen Van Zanten, S. J., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: A taxonomy and review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 140, 1441–1448.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology, 41, 1380–1387.
Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J.-S. (2010). Comparison of five health-related quality-of-life indexes using Item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30, 5–15.
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, 485–495.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). 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, 276–291.
Whitehurst DGT, Bryan, S., & Lewis, M. (2011). Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Medical Decision Making, 31, E34–E44.
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, 873–884.
Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: Why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? European Journal of Health Economics, 50, 253–260.
Richardson J, McKie J, & Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments [Internet]. Cent. Heal. Econ. 2011. Report No.: Research Paper 64. http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper64.pdf.
Fisk, J. D., Brown, M. G., Sketris, I. S., Metz, L. M., Murray, T. J., & Stadnyk, K. J. (2005). A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76, 58–63.
Andresen, E. M., Gravitt, G. W., Aydelotte, M. E., & Podgorski, C. A. (1999). Limitations of the SF-36 in a sample of nursing home residents. Age and Ageing, 28, 562–566.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V., Dvorak, M. F. S., & Bryan, S. (2016). 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, 25, 2481–2496.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Suryaprakash, N., Engel, L., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak MFS, et al. (2014). Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 50.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Engel, L., & Bryan, S. (2014). Short Form health surveys and related variants in spinal cord injury research†: A systematic review. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 37, 128–138.
Hays, R. D., Hahn, H., & Marshall, G. (2002). Use of the SF-36 and other health-related quality of life measures to assess persons with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, S4–S9.
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, 85–96.
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, 1727–1736.
Goldstein, R. S., Psek J a, & Gort, E. H. (1995). Home mechanical ventilation. Demographics and user perspectives. Chest, 108, 1581–1586.
Hannan, L. M., Sahi, H., Road, J. D., McDonald, C. F., Berlowitz, D. J., & Howard, M. E. (2016). Care practices and health-related quality of life for individuals receiving assisted ventilation: A cross-national study. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 13, 894–903.
Census.gov. (2016). https://www.census.gov/en.html. Accessed June 2016.
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, 209–224.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2395–2404.
http://www.aqol.com.au. (2016) http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/scoring-algorithms. Accessed June 2016.
http://www.aqol.com.au. (2016). http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolinstruments. Accessed June 2016.
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, 2045–2053.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., & Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54, 98–105.
Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2016) Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Office of Health Economics, London.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Whitehurst DGT, 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, 570–577.
Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7, 301–317.
Michel, Y. A., Engel, L., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2016). “When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling”: Interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 164.
Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., & Cairns, J. (2009). SF-6D versus EQ-5D: Reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. European Journal of Health Economics, 10, 15–23.
Whitehurst DGT, & 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, 531–538.
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.
Asada, Y. (2005). Medical technologies, nonhuman aids, human assistance, and environmental factors in the assessment of health states. Quality of Life Research, 14, 867–874.
Bach, J. R., & Campagnolo, D. (1992). Psychosocial adjustment of post-poliomyelitis ventilator assisted individuals. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 934–939.
Hung, M.-C., Yan, Y.-H., Fan, P.-S., Lin, M.-S., Chen, C.-R., & Kuo, L.-C., et al. (2010). Measurement of quality of life using EQ-5D in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: Comparison of patients, family caregivers, and nurses. Quality of Life Research, 19, 721–727.
Norman R, Cronin P, & Viney R. (2013) A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 11:287–98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
LMH received financial support in the form of a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Foundation (Australia).
Conflict of interest
DGTW and SB are members of the EuroQol Group. CFM has been an advisory board member for Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, and Novartis, and has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline. MEH has received an unrestricted research Grant and travel support from ResMed and an equipment loan from Philips Respironics. LMH, DJB, and JDR declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committees [University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board (approval H12-01479) and the Austin Health Research Ethics Committee (approval H2012/04850)] and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hannan, L.M., Whitehurst, D.G.T., Bryan, S. et al. Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation. Qual Life Res 26, 1493–1505 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1510-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1510-z