Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement properties of preference-based measures for economic evaluation in COPD: a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Preference-based measures can provide measurements of health-related quality of life and be utilized for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether generic preference-based measures are reliable, valid, and responsive in COPD.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the sample represented individuals with COPD and the aim was to evaluate one or more psychometric properties or the interpretability of generic preference-based measures.

Results

Six hundred and sixty-seven abstracts were screened, 65 full-text articles were reviewed and 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. Measures which emerged from the search were the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, the Quality of Well-being scale, the 15D, and the Health Utilities Index 3. Evidence for the test–retest reliability of these measures was limited. Construct validity of the measures was well supported with correlations with generic health profiles being 0.37–0.68, and correlations with COPD-specific health profiles being 0.53–0.75. Evidence for known-groups validity of these measures was poor and data on responsiveness were mixed.

Conclusion

Generic preference-based measures’ sensitivity to change and ability to discriminate between different disease severities in COPD was poorly supported. Future research may consider examining the development of COPD-specific preference-based measures that may allow for a more accurate detection of change and discrimination among disease severities to facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from the PRISMA statement [54]. COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, GPBM Generic preference-based measure, N/A not applicable

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article.

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under the curve

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

COSMIN:

Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments

ES:

Effect size

FEV1 :

Forced expiratory volume in one second

GPBM:

Generic preference-based measure

GRADE:

Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation

HUI2 & HUI3:

Health utilities index mark 2 & 3

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

MID:

Minimal important difference

QWB:

Quality of well-being

SRM:

Standardized response mean

References

  1. Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD. (2019).

  2. Miravitlles, M., & Ribera, A. (2017). Understanding the impact of symptoms on the burden of COPD. Respiratory Research, 18(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-017-0548-3.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Perng, D. W., Tao, C. W., Su, K. C., Tsai, C. C., Liu, L. Y., & Lee, Y. C. (2009). Anti-inflammatory effects of salmeterol/fluticasone, tiotropium/fluticasone or tiotropium in COPD. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/0903193600115308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boueri, F. M. V., Bucher-Bartelson, B. L., Glenn, K. A., & Make, B. J. M. (2001). Quality of life measured with a generic instrument (Short Form-36) improves following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Chest. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.119.1.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier, J., Ara, R., Rowen, D., & Chevrou-Severac, H. (2017). A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gutacker, N., Bojke, C., Daidone, S., Devlin, N., & Street, A. (2013). Hospital variation in patient-reported outcomes at the level of EQ-5D dimensions: Evidence from England. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13482523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, D., Wang, D., Li, Y., et al. (2017). Assessing income-related health inequality and horizontal inequity in China. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1221-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolarinwa, O. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.4103/1117-1936.173959.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. De Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Vilagut, G. (2014). Test-retest reliability BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6622–6625). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Chin, C.-L., & Yao, G. (2014). Convergent validity BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1275–1276). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson, M. (2014). Known-groups validity BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 3481–3482). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., De Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient—Reported Outcome Measures ( PROMs ). User Manual, (February), 1–78.

  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deeks, J. J. (2011). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).

  21. Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., & Oxman, A. (2013). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group.

  22. Thuppal, S., Markwell, S., Crabtree, T., & Hazelrigg, S. (2019). Comparison between the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D quality of life (QOL) questionnaires in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Quality of Life Research, 28(7), 1885–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02123-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nolan, C. M., Longworth, L., Lord, J., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Kon, S. S. C., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax, 71(6), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wacker, M. E., Jörres, R. A., Karch, A., Wilke, S., Heinrich, J., Karrasch, S., et al. (2016). Assessing health-related quality of life in COPD: Comparing generic and disease-specific instruments with focus on comorbidities. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-016-0238-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen, J., Wong, C. K., McGhee, S. M., Pang, P. K., & Yu, W. C. (2014). A comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112389.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., & Pereira, L. N. (2014). Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 27(2), 236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim, S. H., Oh, Y. M., & Jo, M. W. (2014). Health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Korea. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin, F. J., Pickard, A. S., Krishnan, J. A., Joo, M. J., Au, D. H., & Carson, S. S. (2014). Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-78.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Manca, S., Rodriguez, E., Huerta, A., Torres, M., Lazaro, L., Curi, S., et al. (2014). Usefulness of the CAT, LCOPD, EQ-5D and COPDSS scales in understanding the impact of lung disease in patients with Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 11(5), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.3109/15412555.2014.898030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Peters, M., Crocker, H., Dummett, S., Jenkinson, C., Doll, H., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2014). Change in health status in long-term conditions over a one year period: A cohort survey using patient-reported outcome measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goossens, L. M. A., Nivens, M. C., Sachs, P., Monz, B. U., & Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H. (2011). Is the EQ-5D responsive to recovery from a moderate COPD exacerbation? Respiratory Medicine, 105(8), 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2011.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pickard, A. S., Yang, Y., & Lee, T. A. (2011). Comparison of health-related quality of life measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-26.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Menn, P., Weber, N., & Holle, R. (2010). Health-related quality of life in patients with severe COPD hospitalized for exacerbations—comparing EQ-5D, SF-12 and SGRQ. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Polley, L., Yaman, N., Heaney, L., Cardwell, C., Murtagh, E., Ramsey, J., et al. (2008). Impact of cough across different chronic respiratory diseases: Comparison of two cough-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires. Chest, 134(2), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.07-0141.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ringbaek, T., Brøndum, E., Martinez, G., & Lange, P. (2008). EuroQoL in assessment of the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation COPD patients. Respiratory Medicine, 102(11), 1563–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2008.06.016.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H., Oostenbrink, J. B., Tashkin, D. P., Burkhart, D., & Monz, B. U. (2006). Does quality of life of COPD patients as measured by the generic EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire differentiate between COPD severity stages? Chest, 130(4), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.130.4.1117.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Stavem, K. (1999). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Quality of Life Research, 8(1–2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026475531996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Harper, R., Brazier, J. E., Waterhouse, J. C., Walters, S. J., Jones, N. M. B., & Howard, P. (1997). Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax, 52(10), 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.52.10.879.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kaplan, R. M. (2005). The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1081/COPD-200052090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Anderson, J. P., Kaplan, R. M., Berry, C. C., Bush, J. W., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1989). Interday reliability of function assessment for a health status measure: The quality of well-being scale. Medical Care, 27(11), 1076–1084.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kaplan, R. M., Atkins, C. J., & Timms, R. (1984). Validity of a quality of well-being scale as an outcome measure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 37(2), 85–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Koskela, J., Kupiainen, H., Kilpeläinen, M., Lindqvist, A., Sintonen, H., Pitkäniemi, J., et al. (2014). Longitudinal HRQoL shows divergent trends and identifies constant decliners in asthma and COPD. Respiratory Medicine, 108(3), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.12.001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mazur, W., Kupiainen, H., Pitkäniemi, J., Kilpeläinen, M., Sintonen, H., & Lindqvist, A. (2011). Comparison between the disease-specific airways questionnaire 20 and the generic 15D instruments in COPD. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Puhan, M. A., Guyatt, G. H., Goldstein, R., Mador, J., McKim, D., Stahl, E., et al. (2007). Relative responsiveness of the chronic respiratory questionnaire, St. Georges respiratory questionnaire and four other health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic lung disease. Respiratory Medicine, 101(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.04.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chauvin, A., Rupley, L., Meyers, K., Johnson, K., & Eason, J. (2008). Outcomes in cardiopulmonary physical therapy: Chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, 19(2), 61–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Petrillo, J., Van Nooten, F., Jones, P., & Rutten-Van Mölken, M. (2011). Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A preference for change? PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.2165/11589280-000000000-00000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Simon Pickard, A., Wilke, C., Jung, E., Patel, S., Stavem, K., & Lee, T. A. (2008). Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2018). What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Qian, X., Tan, R. L. Y., Chuang, L. H., & Luo, N. (2020). Measurement properties of commonly used generic preference-based measures in East and South-East Asia: A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00854-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fayers, P. M., Hays, R., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: Methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors (AM, MKB, JW, NP, AK) contributed to the study’s conception and/or design. Screening of articles and quality assessments were performed by AM and NP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AM. Preliminary edits were made by AK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript, and AM is the guarantor of the paper.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

    Ava Mehdipour, Marla K. Beauchamp, Nicole Peters & Ayse Kuspinar

  2. Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, 50 Charlton Ave. E., Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada

    Marla K. Beauchamp & Joshua Wald

  3. Respiratory Research, West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, ON, M6M 2J5, Canada

    Marla K. Beauchamp

  4. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Joshua Wald

Authors
  1. Ava Mehdipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marla K. Beauchamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua Wald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ayse Kuspinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Kuspinar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mehdipour, A., Beauchamp, M.K., Wald, J. et al. Measurement properties of preference-based measures for economic evaluation in COPD: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 29, 2875–2885 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02569-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02569-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation