An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions
- 359 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
The HRQL of the majority of different groups could be discriminated between by the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS.
KeywordsConstruct validity EQ-5D SF-6D Health-related quality of life
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).
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.Office for National Statistics: Standard occupational classification 2000 (Volume 2): the coding index. The Stationery Office, London (2000)Google Scholar
- 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
- 27.WHO: Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on Obesity. WHO, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 37.Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Thomson South-Western, Mason (2006)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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