Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of the SF-6Dv2 in an Iranian breast cancer population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 26 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Introduction

The Short-Form Six-Dimension version 2 (SF-6Dv2) is the newest preference-based instrument for estimation of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of the SF-6Dv2 in an Iranian breast cancer population.

Methods

The SF-6Dv2 and FACT-B instruments were completed for 416 patients who were recruited from the largest academic center for cancer patients in Iran. The ceiling effects are computed as the proportion of participants reporting no problems in SF-6Dv2 index. Construct validity was evaluated using convergent validity, discriminant validity, and known-groups validity. Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s kappa value.

Results

The ceiling effects of the SF-6Dv2 was 2.16%. Higher scores of all subscales of the FACT-B were associated with patients who reported no problems in each of the SF-6Dv2 dimensions. The correlation between SF-6Dv2 dimensions and FACT-B subscales varied from 0.109 between the role limitation of the SF-6Dv2 and the SWB subscale of the FACT-B to 0.665 between the pain dimension of SF-6Dv2 and the PWB of FACT-B. The lower mean score of SF-6Dv2 was associated with patients with older age, higher education level, more severe current treatment status, and more severe cancer stage status. ICC for the SF-6Dv2 index scores was 0.66, and Kappa values varied from 0.33 for mobility to 0.66 for mental health dimensions.

Conclusions

The validity and reliability of the SF-6Dv2 were satisfaction in a breast cancer population and it can be employed in clinical practice or research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mukuria C, Rowen D, Harnan S, Rawdin A, Wong R, Ara R, et al. An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(3):295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu J, Han Y, Zhao F-L, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and short form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Palfreyman S, Mulhern B. The psychometric performance of generic preference-based measures for patients with pressure ulcers. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1061–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. How consistent are health utility values? Qual Life Res. 2008;17(7):1031–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier JE, Mulhern BJ, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Rowen D, Alonso J, et al. Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med Care. 2020;58(6):557–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Daroudi R. Developing SF-6D-V2 utility weights for Iran using a discrete choice experiment [Ph. D. Thesis]. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of Public Health. 2016.

  12. Cella D. FACIT manual: manual of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system. Center on Outcomes Research and Education; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fayers P, Weeden S, Curran D. EORTC QLQ–C30 reference values manual. EORTC; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Patoo M, Allahyari AA, Moradi AR, Payandeh M. Persian version of functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) scale: confirmatory factor analysis and psychometric properties. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(9):3799–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nahvijou A, Safari H, Ameri H. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-5L with two versions of the SF-6Dv2 in patients with breast cancer. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2020;20:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nahvijou A, Safari H, Yousefi M, Rajabi M, Arab-Zozani M, Ameri H. Mapping the cancer-specific FACT-B onto the generic SF-6Dv2. Breast Cancer. 2020;28:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th ed. USA: Duxbury Thomson Learning; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jönsson B, Rehnberg C. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1073–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu J, Xie S, He X, Chen G, Brazier JE. The simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric testing. Qual Life Res. 2020;29:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Poder TG, Fauteux V, He J, Brazier JE. Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 dimension version 2. Value Health. 2019;22(7):837–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sakthong P, Kasemsup V. Health utility measured with EQ-5D in Thai patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Value Health. 2012;15(1):S79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saiguay W, Sakthong P. The psychometric testing of the Thai version of the health utilities index in patients with ischemic heart disease. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1753–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Khudairy AA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and diabetes health profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim S-H, Jo M-W, Lee J-W, Lee H-J, Kim JK. Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services (97-01-51-26473).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Azin Nahvijou

  2. Health Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Safari

  3. Health Policy and Management Research Center, Department of Health Services Management, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Hosein Ameri

Authors
  1. Azin Nahvijou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Safari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hosein Ameri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hosein Ameri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee (the Imam Khomeini Cancer Institute + IR.TUMS.SPH.REC. 1396.4880) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nahvijou, A., Safari, H. & Ameri, H. Psychometric properties of the SF-6Dv2 in an Iranian breast cancer population. Breast Cancer 28, 937–943 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-021-01230-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-021-01230-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation