Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 237–249 | Cite as

An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions

  • Garry R. BartonEmail author
  • Tracey H. Sach
  • Michael Doherty
  • Anthony J. Avery
  • Claire Jenkinson
  • Kenneth R. Muir
Original paper

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether three health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) measures (the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS) can discriminate between the HRQL of different groups of individuals.

Methods

In one UK general practice a cross-sectional survey requested information on six sociodemographic factors, 10 clinical conditions, and the three HRQL measures. Regression analyses were used to assess whether there was a significant difference in HRQL between groups with different sociodemographic factors and those with and without clinical conditions.

Results

One thousand eight hundred and sixty-five questionnaires were returned. There was a significant difference between the HRQL of the majority of different groups according to each HRQL measure. However, not all of the measures could discriminate between groups of different ethnicity, gender, or smoking status, or those with and without asthma, stroke, cancer or diabetes.

Conclusion

The HRQL of the majority of different groups could be discriminated between by the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS.

Keywords

Construct validity EQ-5D SF-6D Health-related quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who completed the Lifestyle Interventions for Knee Pain (LIKP) study questionnaire. The LIKP study was funded by the UK Arthritis Research Campaign (ARC) (grant number 13550). PhD funding for Garry Barton was provided by the UK Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) (PTA-037-2004-00051).

References

  1. 1.
    Streiner, D.L., Norman, G.R.: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazier, J.E., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., Booth, A.: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 3, 1–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, R.: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marra, C.A., Esdaile, J.M., Guh, D., Kopec, J.A., Brazier, J.E., Koehler, B.E., Chalmers, A., Anis A.H.: A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med. Care 42, 1125–1131 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrou, S., Hockley, C.: An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 14, 1169–1189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macran, S., Weatherly, H., Kind, P.: Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med. Care 41, 218–231 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual. Life Res. 7, 155–166 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamers, L.M., Bouwmans, C.A.M., van Straten, A., Donker, M.C.H., Hakkaart, L.: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 15, 1229–1236 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, J.A., Pickard, A.S.: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med. Care 38, 115–121 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo, N., Johnson, J.A., Shaw, J.W., Feeny, D., Coons, S.J.: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med. Care 43, 1078–1086 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Williams, A.: Variations in population health status: results from a UK national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316, 736–741 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lubetkin, E.I., Jia, H., Gold, M.R.: Construct validity of the EQ-5D in low-income Chinese American primary care patients. Qual. Life Res. 13, 1459–1468 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sullivan, P.W., Lawence, W.F., Ghushchyan, V.: A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care 43, 736–749 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lubetkin, E.I., Jia, H., Franks, P., Gold, M.R.: Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Qual. Life Res. 14, 2187–2196 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.: The MOS 36 item short-form health survey: conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473–483 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brazier, J.E.: The SF-36 health survey questionnaire—a tool for economists. Health Econ. 2, 213–215 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, J.A., Connolly, M., Zuberbuhler, P., Brown, N.E.: Health-related quality of life for adults with cystic fibrosis: a regression approach to assessing the impact of recombinant human DNase. Pharmacotherapy 20, 1167–1174 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jia, H., Lubetkin, E.I.: The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general adult US population. J Public Health (Oxf) 27, 156–164 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macran, S.: The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life (Discussion Paper 190). University of York: Centre for Health Economics (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Office for National Statistics: Standard occupational classification 2000 (Volume 2): the coding index. The Stationery Office, London (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claxton, K.: The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J. Health Econ. 18, 341–364 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H.: Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinical important difference. Control Clin. Trials 10, 407–415 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walters S.J., Brazier J.E.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D, SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14, 1523–1532 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marra C.A., Woolcott J.C., Kopec J.A., Shojania K., Offer R., Brazier J.E., Esdaile J.M., Anis A.H.: A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1571–1582 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E.: What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    WHO: Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on Obesity. WHO, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Institutes of Health: Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in Adults—the evidence report. Obes. Res. 6, 51S–209S (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: A social tariff for the EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey (Discussion Paper 138). University of York:Centre for Health Economics (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gerard, K., Nicholson, T., Mullee, M., Mehta, R., Roderick, P.: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 91–102 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ. 15, 209–231 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M.: Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 943–950 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.J.: Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 10, 779–787 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walters, S.J., Campbell, M.J.: The use of bootstrap methods for analysing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF-36). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2, 70 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Thomson South-Western, Mason (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Conner-Spady, B., Suarez-Almazor, M.E.: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care. 41, 791–801 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, A.Q.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 103–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Longworth, L., Bryan, S.: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 12, 1061–1067 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pickard, A.S., Johnson, J.A., Feeny, D.H.: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual. Life Res. 14, 207–219 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lenert, L., Kaplan, R.M.: Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med. Care 38(Supplement 2), 138–150 (2000)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drummond, M.: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 33, 344–349 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hurst, N.P., Kind, P., Ruta, D., Hunter, M., Stubbings, A.: Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Rheumatology (Oxford) 36, 551–559 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sach, T.H., Barton, G.R.: Interpreting parental proxy reports of (health-related) quality of life for children with unilateral cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 17, 435–445 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maddigan, S.L., Feeny, D.H., Johnson, J.A.: Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1311–1320 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wu, S.C., Li, C.Y., Ke, D.S.: The agreement between self-reporting and clinical diagnosis for selected medical conditions among the elderly in Taiwan. Public Health 114, 137–142 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cartwright, A.: Who responds to postal questionnaires? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 40, 267–273 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McColl, E., Jacoby, A., Thomas, L., Soutter, J., Bamford, C., Steen, N., Thomas, R., Harvey, E., Garratt, A., Bond, J.: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1–256 (2001)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M.J., Jones, D.R.: Criteria for assessing patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol. Assess. 2(14), 1–74 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garry R. Barton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tracey H. Sach
    • 2
  • Michael Doherty
    • 3
  • Anthony J. Avery
    • 2
  • Claire Jenkinson
    • 2
  • Kenneth R. Muir
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.School of Community Health SciencesUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Academic RheumatologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations