Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 349–359

Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function

  • G.W. Torrance
  • M.A. Keresteci
  • R.W. Casey
  • A.J. Rosner
  • N. Ryan
  • M.C. Breton
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Health-related quality of life instruments may be generic or specific. In general, only generic instruments use preference-based scoring. We report on a novel approach to combine in one instrument the strengths of the specific approach, greater disease relevance and responsiveness, with those of preference-based scoring, generalizability through utilities. Objectives: The primary objective was to develop a self-administered, preference-based instrument capable of measuring utilities in the disease-specific context of erectile dysfunction (ED). Methods: Content derivation/validation began with a literature review. Eight attributes (domains) were selected to provide clinical experts structure for focus group discussion. Four levels describing a continuum of dysfunction–function were defined for each domain. Each domain, including functional levels, was reviewed and modified until consensus was achieved regarding content. This content was then integrated into a preference based scoring instrument using two visual analogue scales (VAS) with which patients rated three ‘marker’ health states (representing mild, moderate and severe ED), their self-state and a previously validated external marker state. The instrument was pilot tested, and implemented in a clinical trial. Initial validation analyses have been performed. Results: A self-administered, preference-based, VAS instrument was developed for use in the ED population, and the instrument was feasible to complete, was reliable beyond the threshold of acceptability established a priori and demonstrated good validity. Evidence of these properties accumulates over time and this study begins that process with this instrument. Responsiveness is being assessed in the context of a clinical trial.

Disease-specific utility Erectile dysfunction Quality of life Visual analogue scale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Lexicon, 1st edn. In: Pashos CL, Klein EG, Wanke LA (eds), International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feldman HA et al. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: Results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urology 1994; 151: 54-61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, et al. Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. NEJM 1998; 338: 1397-1404.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner TH, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, et al. Cross-cultural development of a quality of life measure for men with erection difficulties. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 443-449.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosen RC, et al. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49(6): 822-830.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Internal Med 1993; 118(8): 622-629.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds.), Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; 82-134.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torrance GW. Designing and conducting cost-utility analyses. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 1105-1111.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 329-334.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conte HR. Development and use of self-report techniques for assessing sexual functioning: A review and critique. Arch Sex Behav 1983; 12: 555-576.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson BL, Broffit B. Is there a reliable and valid self-report measure of sexual function? Arch Sex Behav 1988; 17: 509-525.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foreman MM, Doherty PC. Experimental approaches to the development of pharmacological therapies for erectile dysfunction. In: Riley AJ, et al. (eds), Sexual Pharmacology, Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1993; 87-113.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Moran LA, et al. Health state utilities in knee replacement surgery: The development and evaluation of McKnee. J Rheum 1997; 24(9): 1796-1805.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 253-265.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health related quality of life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48(11): 1531-1548.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spiker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 49-56.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(2 Feb): 151-165.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000; 9(8): 887-900.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.W. Torrance
    • 1
    • 2
  • M.A. Keresteci
    • 2
  • R.W. Casey
    • 3
  • A.J. Rosner
    • 2
  • N. Ryan
    • 2
  • M.C. Breton
    • 4
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Innovus Research Inc.BurlingtonCanada
  3. 3.Male Health CentreOakvilleCanada
  4. 4.Pfizer Canada Inc.KirklandCanada

Personalised recommendations