Does the EQ-5D capture the effects of physical and mental health status on life satisfaction among older people? A path analysis approach
- 527 Downloads
To examine the extent to which EQ-5D utility scores capture the effect of mental and physical health status on life satisfaction (LS) in older adults.
Retrospective cohort study of 884 patients aged ≥70 years from 15 general practices in Ireland, including medical records, pharmacy claims, and self-completion questionnaire. Path analysis was used to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of: (1) chronic disease burden (based on medications data); (2) activity limitation (basic and instrumental activities of daily living); (3) anxiety symptoms and; (4) depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) on LS (Life Satisfaction Index Z), via a utility score based on responses to the EQ-5D scale. Utility scores were calculated using UK time trade-off utility weights. Covariates included age and socioeconomic status.
The final path model fitted the data well (goodness of fit χ2 = 7.5, df (7), p = 0.37). The direct effects of chronic disease burden and disability on LS were not statistically significant and were excluded from the final model, indicating that EQ-5D score mediated 100% of the total effect on LS. The direct and indirect effects of anxiety and depression on LS were statistically significant, but the size of the indirect effect was small (4% of the total effect for anxiety and 6% of the total effect for depression).
The EQ-5D does not adequately capture the effects of anxiety and depression on LS among older adults, suggesting that it may lead to inaccurate assessments of the effectiveness of interventions in this cohort.
KeywordsHealth-related quality of life Utility Anxiety Depression Life satisfaction Older adults
This work was supported by the Health Research Board PhD Scholar’s Programme in Health Services Research in Ireland under Grant No. PHD/2007/16 and the Health Research Board Centre for Primary Care Research Grant HRC/2007/1.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7996652.
- 3.Ferrans, C. E., Zerwic, J. J., Wilbur, J. E., & Larson, J. L. (2005). Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 336–42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16396406.
- 6.Mulhern, B., Mukuria, C., Barkham, M., Knapp, M., Byford, S., Soeteman, D., & Brazier, J. (2012). Using preference based measures in mental health conditions: The psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D (No. 13/04). HEDS Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
- 7.Peasgood, T., Brazier, J., & Papaionnou, D. (2011). A sysyematic review of the validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D for depression and anxiety (No. 12/15). HEDS Discussion Paper. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/74892.
- 8.Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10, 621–635. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013171831202.
- 11.Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2012). Valuing health: A brief report on subjective well-being versus preferences. Medical Decision Making, 32,578–582. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11435173
- 12.Peeters, Y., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2010). Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value in Health, 13(2), 306–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gerhards, S. A., Evers, S. M., Sabel, P. W., & Huibers, M. J. (2011). Discrepancy in rating health-related quality of life of depression between patient and general population. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 20(2), 273–279. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9746-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Pyne, J. M., Fortney, J. C., Tripathi, S., Feeny, D., Ubel, P., & Brazier, J. (2009). How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population. Health Services Research, 44(4), 1406–1423. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00974.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Papageorgiou, K., Vermeulen, K. M., Schroevers, M. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P. F. M., et al. (2015). Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why? Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2565–2575. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1018-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Böckerman, P., Johansson, E., & Saarni, S. I. (2011). Do established health-related quality-of-life measures adequately capture the impact of chronic conditions on subjective well-being? Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 100(1), 91–95. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3767472.
- 29.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. (2010). Anatomical therapeutic classification (ATC) classification index. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology.Google Scholar
- 31.Saliba, D., Elliott, M., Rubenstein, L. Z., Solomon, D. H., Young, R. T., Kamberg, C. J., et al. (2001). The vulnerable elders survey: A tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(12), 1691–1699. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49281.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Kelly, A., & Teljeur, C. (2007). The national deprivation index for health and health services research. Dublin: Small Area Health Research Unit.Google Scholar
- 35.Central Statistics Office. (2006). Census 2006. Dublin: Central Statistics Office, Information Section.Google Scholar
- 37.Sullivan, M. D., Kempen, G. I., Van Sonderen, E., & Ormel, J. (2000). Models of health-related quality of life in a population of community-dwelling Dutch elderly. Quality of Life Research, 9(7), 801–810. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11297022.
- 38.Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Multivariate applications series. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 41.Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 43.Kind, P., Hardman, G., & Macran, S. (1999). UK population norms for EQ-5D (No. 172). Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper Series. York: Centre for Health Economics. http://www.york.ac.uk/che/pdf/DP172.pdf.
- 44.McTaggart-Cowan, H., Tsuchiya, A., O’Cathain, A., & Brazier, J. (2011). Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states. Social Science and Medicine, 72(11), 1904–1912. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf.
- 47.Health Information and Quality Authority. (2010). Guidance on developing key performance indicators and minimum data sets to monitor healthcare Quality. Health (San Francisco). http://www.hiqa.ie/media/pdfs/HI_KPI_Guidelines.pdf.
- 48.American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. (2012). Patient-centered care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: A stepwise approach from the American Geriatrics. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 1957–1968. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04187.x.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 49.Patten, S. B., Williams, J. V., Lavorato, D. H., Bulloch, A. G. M., Currie, C., & Emery, H. (2014). Depression and painful conditions: Patterns of association with health status and health utility ratings in the general population. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 23(1), 363–371. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0449-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Makai, P., Brouwer, W. B. F., Koopmanschap, M. A., Stolk, E. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine (1982), 102, 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Flynn, T. N., Huynh, E., Peters, T. J., Al-Janabi, H., Clemens, S., Moody, A., et al. (2015). Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Seconomics, 24, 258–269.Google Scholar
- 54.Makai, P., Brouwer, W. B. F., Koopmanschap, M. A., Stolk, E. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine (1982), 102, 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Agborsangaya, C. B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: Measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 74. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 57.Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar