Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EQ-5D-derived health utilities and minimally important differences for chronic health conditions: 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to estimate the EQ-5D-derived health utilities associated with selected chronic conditions (hypertension, heart disease, arthritis, asthma or COPD, cancer, diabetes, chronic back pain, and anxiety or depression) and to estimate minimally important differences (MID) based on the Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada.

Methods

We used a cross-sectional survey of 3765 sick adults in Canada conducted in 2011 by the Commonwealth Fund. Health utilities were calculated for the entire sample and for each of the eight chronic health conditions. An ordinary least squares regression was used to estimate the utility decrement associated with these conditions with and without adjustment for socio-demographic factors. The MIDs were estimated using the anchor- and distribution-based methods.

Results

The adjusted utility decrement varied from 0.028 (95 % confidence interval (CI) −0.049, −0.008) for diabetes to 0.124 (95 % CI −0.142, −0.105) for anxiety or depression. The anchor-based MID for the entire group was 0.044 (95 % CI 0.025, 0.062), and the distribution-based MID for the entire group was 0.091. The condition-specific MIDs using the distribution-based method ranged from 0.089 for cancer to 0.108 for asthma or COPD.

Conclusions

The MID estimated by the distribution-based method was larger than the MID estimated by the anchor-based method, indicating that the choice of method matters. The impact of arthritis, anxiety or depression, and chronic back pain on health utility was substantial, all exceeding or approximating the MID estimated using either anchor- or distribution-based methods.

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

References

  1. Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brożek, J. L., Guyatt, G. H., & Schünemann, H. J. (2006). How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 69. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W, Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(1), 81–87. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 221–226. doi:10.2307/4034505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schünemann, H. J., Puhan, M., Goldstein, R., Jaeschke, R., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005). Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). Copd: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2(1), 81–89. doi:10.1081/COPD-200050651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383. doi:10.4065/77.4.371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(9), 861–873. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolan, P. (2011). Thinking about it: Thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Economics, 20(12), 1407–1416. doi:10.1002/hec.1679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Le, Q. A., Doctor, J. N., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2013). Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Results from a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 59. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43(7), 736–749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walters, S., & Brazier, J. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Agborsangaya, C., Lau, D., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. (2013). Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization in multimorbidity: Results of a cross-sectional survey. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 791–799. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0214-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chao, Y. S., Ekwaru, J. P., Ohinmaa, A., Griener, G., & Veugelers, P. J. (2014). Vitamin D and health-related quality of life in a community sample of older Canadians. Quality of Life Research, 23(9), 2569–2575. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0696-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oremus, M., Tarride, J.-E., Clayton, N., & Raina, P. (2014). Health utility scores in alzheimer’s disease: Differences based on calculation with American and Canadian preference weights. Value in Health, 17(1), 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schoen, C., Osborn, R., Squires, D., Doty, M., Pierson, R., & Applebaum, S. (2011). New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. Health Affairs, 30(12), 2437–2448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harris Interactive Inc. (2011). International health perspectives 2011 survey of sicker adults, methods report.

  26. Rabin, R., & Charro, F. D. (2001). EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. doi:10.3109/07853890109002087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Anis, A. (2012). Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: Preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE,. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031115.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pullenayegum, E. M., Tarride, J.-E., Xie, F., Goeree, R., Gerstein, H. C., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value in Health, 13(4), 487–494. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00695.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lumley, T. (2004). Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software, 9(1), 19. doi:10.18637/jss.v009.i08.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schisterman, E. F., Cole, S. R., & Platt, R. W. (2009). Overadjustment Bias and Unnecessary Adjustment in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 20(4), 488–495. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a819a1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. R Development Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  32. Lumley, T. (2012). Survey: Analysis of complex survey samples. R Package Version 3.28–2.

  33. Dyer, M. T. D., Goldsmith, K. A., Sharples, L. S., & Buxton, M. J. (2010). A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Janssen, M. F., Lubetkin, E. I., Sekhobo, J. P., & Pickard, A. S. (2011). The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine, 28(4), 395–413. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pickard, A. S., Wilke, C., Jung, E., Patel, S., Stavem, K., & Lee, T. A. (2008). Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine, 102(4), 519–536. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Supina, A., Johnson, J., Patten, S., Williams, J. A., & Maxwell, C. (2007). The usefulness of the EQ-5D in differentiating among persons with major depressive episode and anxiety. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 749–754. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9159-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Whynes, D. K., McCahon, R. A., Ravenscroft, A., Hodgkinson, V., Evley, R., & Hardman, J. G. (2013). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value in Health, 16(1), 124–132. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 344–349. doi:10.3109/07853890109002088.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Szende, A., Janssen, B., & Cabases, J. (Eds.). (2014). Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer Open.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Norman, G. R., Gwadry Sridhar, F., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39(10), 1039–1047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Soer, R., Reneman, M. F., Speijer, B. L. G. N., Coppes, M. H., & Vroomen, P. C. A. J. (2012). Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. The Spine Journal, 12(11), 1035–1039. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. König, H.-H., Born, A., Günther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kvam, A. K., Fayers, P. M., & Wisloff, F. (2011). Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: A comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. European Journal of Haematology, 87(4), 330–337. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2011.01665.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Kate Tsiplova

  2. The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada

    Eleanor Pullenayegum

  3. Health Quality Council of Alberta, Calgary, Canada

    Tim Cooke

  4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Feng Xie

Authors
  1. Kate Tsiplova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleanor Pullenayegum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Cooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Feng Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Xie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsiplova, K., Pullenayegum, E., Cooke, T. et al. EQ-5D-derived health utilities and minimally important differences for chronic health conditions: 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Sicker Adults in Canada. Qual Life Res 25, 3009–3016 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1336-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1336-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation