The impact of depression on health-related quality of life and wellbeing: identifying important dimensions and assessing their inclusion in multi-attribute utility instruments
Wellbeing measures have been proposed for inclusion in economic evaluation to measure the effect of depression and compensate for shortcomings of existing multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs). The aims of this study were to identify dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and wellbeing that are most affected by depression and to examine the extent to which these are captured by MAUIs.
Data were used from the Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Dimensions of HRQoL (SF-36v2 and AQoL-8D dimensions), capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A), and subjective wellbeing (including PWI, SWLS, and IHS) were identified that distinguished most individuals with depression from a healthy public. The extent to which these dimensions explain the content of five existing MAUIs (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI-3, and SF-6D) was examined using regression analyses. Additionally, the sensitivity of all MAUIs was also assessed towards depression-specific symptoms measured by DASS-21 and K-10.
The sample consisted of 917 individuals with self-reported depression and 1760 healthy subjects. Dimensions that distinguished most individuals with depression from the healthy group (effect size > 2) included AQoL-8D coping, AQoL-8D happiness, AQoL-8D self-worth, ICECAP-A, SF-36 mental health, and SF-36 social functioning. The AQoL-8D was most sensitive to the dimensions above as well as towards the depression-specific measures, the K10, DASS-S, and DASS-D.
This study has shown that psychosocial dimensions of HRQoL have the greatest ability to capture the impact of depression when compared with dimensions of capability wellbeing and SWB. Some MAUIs, such as the AQoL-8D, are sensitive to most distinguishing dimensions of HRQoL and wellbeing, which may obviate the need for supplementary wellbeing instruments.
KeywordsHealth-related quality of life Multi-attribute utility Subjective wellbeing Capability wellbeing Depression
This study was conducted without financial support. Data used in this research study were derived from the Multi-Instrument Comparison study, which was funded by a project grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Project Grant ID 1006334 ‘A cross national comparison of eight generic quality of life instruments’).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
JR developed the AQoL-8D. The authors report no other conflict of interest.
The study was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project Numbers: CF11/1758-2011000974 and CF11/3192-2011001748). All procedures performed in this study 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.
- 1.World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA3.0IGO.Google Scholar
- 2.Ferrari, A. J., Charlson, F. J., Norman, R. E., Patten, S. B., Freedman, G., Murray, C. J., et al. (2013). Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS Medicine, 10(11), e1001547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 (Vol. 27). London: NICE.Google Scholar
- 10.Brazier, J., Connell, J., Papaioannou, D., Mukuria, C., Mulhern, B., Peasgood, T., et al. (2014). A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technology Assessment, 18(34), vii–viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Connell, J., Brazier, J., O’Cathain, A., Lloyd-Jones, M., & Paisley, S. (2012). Quality of life of people with mental health problems: A synthesis of qualitative research. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14543107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Papageorgiou, K., Vermeulen, K. M., Schroevers, M. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P. F., et al. (2015). Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why? Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2565–2575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1018-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00974.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 31.Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Coast, J., Flynn, T., Sutton, E., Al-Janabi, H., Vosper, J., Lavender, S., et al. (2008). Investigating choice experiments for preferences of older people (ICEPOP): Evaluative spaces in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(Suppl 3), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.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. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.136036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments. MIC Paper 1 - Background, questions, instruments. Research Paper 76. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.Google Scholar
- 41.Office for National Statistics. (2012). First annual ONS experimental subjective well-being results. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
- 45.Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Sinha, K., Mihalopoulos, C., Herrman, H., et al. (2009). Data used in the development of the AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) quality of life instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.Google Scholar
- 46.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Seiber, W. J., Groessl, E. J., David, K. M., Ganiats, T. G., & Kaplan, R. M. (2008). Quality of Well Being Self Administered (QWB-SA) Scale. User’s Manual. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf.
- 48.Ware, J. E. Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2008). SF-36v2® Health survey: Administration guide for clinical trial investigators. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated.Google Scholar
- 53.Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J. E., Xie, F., Goeree, R., Gerstein, H. C., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value Health, 13(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00695.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.StataCorp (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
- 58.Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., Tuovinen, T. K., Honkalampi, K., Antikainen, R., Hintikka, J., Haatainen, K., et al. (2008). Mental health and well-being in a 6-year follow-up of patients with depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43(9), 688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0353-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.Mulhern, B., & Brazier, J. (2014). Developing version 2 of the SF-6D: The health state classification system. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
- 62.NICE. (2014). Developing NICE guidelines: The manual. London: NICE.Google Scholar
- 63.Engel, L., Mortimer, D., Bryan, S., Lear, S. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2017). An investigation of the overlap between the ICECAP-A and five preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. PharmacoEconomics, 35(7), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0491-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Keetharuth, A. D., Brazier, J., Connell, J., Bjorner, J. B., Carlton, J., Taylor Buck, E., et al. (2018). Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): A new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties. British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2017.10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 66.Wailoo, A. J., Hernandez-Alava, M., Manca, A., Mejia, A., Ray, J., Crawford, B., et al. (2017). Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health, 20(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar