Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 493–500 | Cite as

Effect of order of administration of health-related quality of life interview instruments on responses

  • Ashley L. Childs
Article

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the effect on patient responses from the order in which the generic health-related and vision-targeted instruments are administered in a set of randomized clinical trials of intraocular surgery. Patients and methods: Patients who agreed to enroll in the Submacular Surgery Trials (SST) completed baseline quality of life interviews prior to random assignment to surgery or observation. Interviews were conducted by trained interviewers located at the SST Coordinating Center, via a computer-assisted telephone interview system that randomly assigned the order of instrument administration. Either the generic health-related instruments were administered first, the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) followed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), followed by the vision-targeted instruments, National Eye Institute-Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) followed by the SST-Vision Preference Value Scale, or the vision-targeted questions were asked first, followed by the generic health instruments. The four instruments have 25 subscales total. Results: Of the 1015 patients enrolled in the SST, 992 patients had all four instruments administered in random order: 483 (49%) patients responded to the generic instruments first and 509 (51%) patients responded to the vision-targeted instruments first. Order of administration produced significantly different scores for three health status subscales: SF-36 mental health, HADS depression and HADS anxiety (p≤0.05, Wilcoxon rank sum test). Conclusions: Overall, the order of administration did not have a large effect on responses to the baseline interviews in this study. However, three mental health subscales were affected by order, though the order effect was small in magnitude. When the generic health instruments followed the vision-targeted instrument the HADS depression and anxiety scores were higher and the SF-36 mental health scores were lower, both suggesting poorer mental health status. Thus, the order of administration in other settings in which both a generic health-related instrument and a condition-targeted instrument are used may be decided based on individual study goals and priorities but order of administration should be consistent throughout the study.

Keywords

Health status Health surveys Interviews/methods Quality of life 

Abbreviations

HADS

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

MCS

Mental Component Summary (from the SF-36)

MHI-5

Mental health 5-item subscale (from the SF-36)

NEI-VFQ

National Eye Institute-Vision Function Questionnaire

PCS

Physical Component Summary (from the SF-36)

SF-36

SF-36 Health Survey

SST

Submacular Surgery Trials

SST-VPVS

Submacular Surgery Trials – Vision Preference Value Scale

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Drummond MF, ed. Measuring the Quality of Life of People with Visual Impairment. Proceedings of a Workshop. NIH Publication No. 90-3078. Bethesda, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. Mangione, CM, Phillips, RS, Seddon, JM, Lawrence, MG, Cook, EF, Dailey, R, Goldman, L 1992Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale’: a measure of visual functional status.Med Care3011111126Google Scholar
  3. Guyatt, GH, Feeney, DH, Patrick, DL 1993Measuring health-related quality of life.Ann Internal Med118622629Google Scholar
  4. Patrick, DL, Deyo, RA 1989Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.Med Care27S217S232Google Scholar
  5. Ware, JE, Kemp, JP, Buchner, DA 1998Singer AE, Nolop KB and Goss TF. The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults.Qual Life Res7235244Google Scholar
  6. Wu, AW,  et al. 1997The effect of mode of administration on Medical Outcomes Study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS.Qual Life Res6310Google Scholar
  7. Barry, MJ,  et al. 1996Measurement of overall and disease-specific health status: does the order of questionnaires make a difference?J Health Serv Res Policy12027Google Scholar
  8. Submacular Surgery Trials Research Group. Submacular Surgery Trials (SST) Manual of Procedures. NTIS accession no. PB98-166648. Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, June 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. Zigmond, AS, Snaith, RP 1983The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.Acta Psychiatr Scand67361370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mangione, CM,  et al. 1998Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ).Arch Ophthalmol11614961504Google Scholar
  12. Submacular surgery Trials Research Group. Patients perception of the value of current vision: Assessment of preference values among patients with subfoveal chorodial neovascularization. SST Report No. 6. Arch Ophthalamol; (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Mangione, CM,  et al. 2001Development of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.Arch Ophthalmol11910501058Google Scholar
  14. Ware, JE 1994SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual.The Health Institute, New England Medical CenterBostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Snedecor, GWCochran, WG eds. 1980Statistical Methods7Iowa State University PressAmes, Iowa144145Google Scholar
  16. Tukey, JW eds. 1997Exploratory Data AnalysisAddison-Wesley Publishing CompanyReading, MA3441Google Scholar
  17. Froberg, DG, Kane, RL 1989Methodology for Measuring Health-State Preferences–IV: Progress and a Research Agenda.J Clin Epidemiol42675685Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SST Coordinating CenterThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations