Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation
To explore the influence of descriptive differences in items evaluating mobility on index scores generated from two generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments.
The study examined cross-sectional data from a postal survey of individuals receiving assisted ventilation in two state/province-wide home mechanical ventilation services, one in British Columbia, Canada and the other in Victoria, Australia. The Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D) and the EQ-5D-5L were included in the data collection. Graphical illustrations, descriptive statistics, and measures of agreement [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots] were examined using index scores derived from both instruments. Analyses were performed on the full sample as well as subgroups defined according to respondents’ self-reported ability to walk.
Of 868 individuals receiving assisted ventilation, 481 (55.4%) completed the questionnaire. Mean index scores were 0.581 (AQoL-8D) and 0.566 (EQ-5D-5L) with ‘moderate’ agreement demonstrated between the two instruments (ICC = 0.642). One hundred fifty-nine (33.1%) reported level 5 (‘I am unable to walk about’) on the EQ-5D-5L Mobility item. The walking status of respondents had a marked influence on the comparability of index scores, with a larger mean difference (0.206) and ‘slight’ agreement (ICC = 0.386) observed when the non-ambulant subgroup was evaluated separately.
This study provides further evidence that between-measure discrepancies between preference-based HRQoL instruments are related in part to the framing of mobility-related items. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the responsiveness of preference-based HRQoL instruments in cohorts that include non-ambulant individuals.
KeywordsAQoL-8D EQ-5D-5L Mobility Quality of life Respiratory insufficiency Non-invasive ventilation
- 3.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Process and methods guides: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013;34–5. http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9.
- 4.Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.5. 2015.Google Scholar
- 5.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies, 3rd Edition. 2006.Google Scholar
- 6.Australian Government: Department of Health and Aging. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. 2009.Google Scholar
- 8.Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007) Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). 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, 276–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Richardson J, McKie J, & Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments [Internet]. Cent. Heal. Econ. 2011. Report No.: Research Paper 64. http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper64.pdf.
- 20.Whitehurst, D. G. T., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V., Dvorak, M. F. S., & Bryan, S. (2016). Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: A comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 25, 2481–2496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Whitehurst, D. G. T., Suryaprakash, N., Engel, L., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak MFS, et al. (2014). Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Hannan, L. M., Sahi, H., Road, J. D., McDonald, C. F., Berlowitz, D. J., & Howard, M. E. (2016). Care practices and health-related quality of life for individuals receiving assisted ventilation: A cross-national study. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 13, 894–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Census.gov. (2016). https://www.census.gov/en.html. Accessed June 2016.
- 31.http://www.aqol.com.au. (2016) http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/scoring-algorithms. Accessed June 2016.
- 35.Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2016) Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Office of Health Economics, London.Google Scholar
- 40.Michel, Y. A., Engel, L., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2016). “When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling”: Interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 46.Hung, M.-C., Yan, Y.-H., Fan, P.-S., Lin, M.-S., Chen, C.-R., & Kuo, L.-C., et al. (2010). Measurement of quality of life using EQ-5D in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: Comparison of patients, family caregivers, and nurses. Quality of Life Research, 19, 721–727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar