Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To contribute to the ongoing discussion on the choice of a preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument to be used in cost-effectiveness analysis by studying and comparing the validity, sensitivity and relative efficiency of 15-D and EuroQol 5D 5L (EQ-5D-5L) in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease (PD) population sample.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-three volunteers were asked to complete an interview using 15-D and EQ-5D-5L. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to test the convergent validity of these instruments with specific PD measures. Sensitivity and efficiency were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and relative efficiency statistic, respectively.

Results

A strong correlation (r > 0.65; p < 0.001) was found between both 15-D and EQ-5D-5L utilities with the summary score of the PDQ-8, and a strong correlation (r > 0.50; p < 0.001) was found between 15-D and EQ-5D-5L utilities with the EQ-VAS. The areas under the ROC of both instruments all exceeded 0.5 (p < 0.001). The 15-D instrument was 4.1–29.8 % less efficient at detecting differences between patients with optimal HRQoL, while this instrument was 11 % more efficient at detecting differences between patients at mild and moderate to strong severity of the PD symptoms.

Conclusions

15-D and EQ-5D-5L are showed to be valid and sensitivity generic HRQoL measures in Spanish PD patients with both instruments showing similar HRQoL dimension coverage and ceiling/floor effects. The 15-D has better efficiency and greater sensitivity to detect clinical changes in PD severity of the symptoms meanwhile the EQ-5D-5L is better to detect clinical HRQoL changes. Additionally, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requires less time than 15-D to be administered, and it might be more appropriate for studies conducted in Spain, since a country-specific “value set” is available for this instrument and not for the 15-D.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PD:

Parkinson’s disease

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

EQ:

EuroQol

RE:

Relative efficiency

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

PDQ:

Parkinson’s disease questionnaire

CUA:

Cost-utility analysis

QALY:

Quality-adjusted life years

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

TTO:

Time trade-off

SD:

Standard deviation

IQR:

Interquartile range

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

AUC:

Area under the curve

References

  1. Lees, A. J., Hardy, J., & Revesz, T. (2009). Parkinson’s disease. Lancet, 373(9680), 2055–2066.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yousefi, B., Tadibi, V., Fathollahzadeh Khoei, A., & Montazeri, A. (2009). Exercise therapy, quality of life, and activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson disease: A small scale quasi-randomised trial. Trials, 10(1), 67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodwin, V. A., Richards, S. H., Taylor, R. S., Taylor, A. H., & Campbell, J. L. (2008). The effectiveness of exercise interventions for people with Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Movement Disorders, 23(5), 631–640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Peto, V., Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R., & Greenhall, R. (1995). The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 241–248.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. de Boer, A. G., Wijker, W., Speelman, J. D., & de Haes, J. C. (1996). Quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: Development of a questionnaire. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 61(1), 70–74.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jenkinson, C., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2007). Cross-cultural evaluation of the short form 8-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-8): Results from America, Canada, Japan, Italy and Spain. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 13(1), 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brazier, J., Deverill, M., & Green, C. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4(3), 174–184.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Younossi, Z. M., & Guyatt, G. (1998). Quality-of-life assessments and chronic liver disease. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 93(7), 1037–1041.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 328–336.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rasanen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynanen, O. P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(2), 235–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Martinez-Martin, P., Jeukens-Visser, M., Lyons, K. E., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Selai, C., Siderowf, A., et al. (2011). Health-related quality-of-life scales in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Movement Disorders, 26(13), 2371–2380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haapaniemi, T. H., Sotaniemi, K. A., Sintonen, H., & Taimela, E. (2004). The generic 15D instrument is valid and feasible for measuring health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 75(7), 976–983.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2010). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 565–569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo, N., Low, S., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2009). Is EQ-5D a valid quality of life instrument in patients with Parkinson’s disease? A study in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 38(6), 521–528.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goetz, C. G., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Sampaio, C., Stebbins, G. T., Counsell, C., et al. (2004). Movement disorder society task force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: Status and recommendations. Movement Disorders, 19(9), 1020–1028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L value sets. Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html. Accessed July 1, 2012.

  20. Siderowf, A. D., & Werner, R. M. (2001). The EQ-5D–a generic quality of life measure—Is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 70(6), 817.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Martinez-Martin, P., & Deuschl, G. (2007). Effect of medical and surgical interventions on health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders, 22(6), 757–765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martinez-Martin, P., & Kurtis, M. M. (2009). Systematic review of the effect of dopamine receptor agonists on patient health-related quality of life. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 15(Suppl 4), S58–S64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoehn, M. M., & Yahr, M. D. (2001). Parkinsonism: Onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology, 57(10 Suppl 3), S11–S26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 87–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stucki, G., Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (1995). Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(11), 1369–1378.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Luo, N., Tan, L. C., Zhao, Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Li, S. C. (2009). Determination of the longitudinal validity and minimally important difference of the 8-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-8). Movement Disorders, 24(2), 183–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fitzpatrick, R., Peto, V., Jenkinson, C., Greenhall, R., & Hyman, N. (1997). Health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: A study of outpatient clinic attenders. Movement Disorders, 12(6), 916–922.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Honkalampi, T., & Sintonen, H. (2010). Do the 15D scores and time trade-off (TTO) values of hospital patients’ own health agree? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26(1), 117–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stavem, K. (1999). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Quality of Life Research, 8(1–2), 45–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lubetkin, E. I., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. R. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our gratitude extends to the following Parkinson associations: Albacete, Aragón, Astorga, Asturias, Bahía de Cádiz, Córdoba, Elche, Extremadura, Gran Canaria, Granada, Lorca, Málaga, Mallorca, Sevilla and Valencia. We also acknowledge the technical support offered by José Ángel Miguel Dávila, Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez and the Universities of Murcia and Extremadura. José María Abellán-Perpiñán and Fernando Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad grant ECO2010-22041-C02-02 and from Fundación Séneca-Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia grant 15357/PHCS/10.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100, Murcia, Spain

    Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo, Fernando Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & José María Abellán-Perpiñán

  2. Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Borja del Pozo-Cruz

  3. Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

    José Carmelo Adsuar

  4. Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

    Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo

Authors
  1. Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Borja del Pozo-Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Carmelo Adsuar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernando Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José María Abellán-Perpiñán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

García-Gordillo, M.Á., del Pozo-Cruz, B., Adsuar, J.C. et al. Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample. Qual Life Res 23, 1315–1326 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0569-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0569-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation