Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores

David K Whynes, TOMBOLA Group, David K Whynes, TOMBOLA Group

Abstract

Background: The EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument comprises a health state classification followed by a health evaluation using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The EQ-5D has been employed frequently in economic evaluations, yet the relationship between the two parts of the instrument remains ill-understood. In this paper, we examine the correspondence between VAS scores and health state classifications for a large sample, and identify variables which contribute to determining the VAS scores independently of the health states as classified.

Methods: A UK trial of management of low-grade abnormalities detected on screening for cervical pre-cancer (TOMBOLA) provided EQ-5D data for over 3,000 women. Information on distress and multi-dimensional health locus of control had been collected using other instruments. A linear regression model was fitted, with VAS score as the dependent variable. Independent variables comprised EQ-5D health state classifications, distress, locus of control, and socio-demographic characteristics. Equivalent EQ-5D and distress data, collected at twelve months, were available for over 2,000 of the women, enabling us to predict changes in VAS score over time from changes in EQ-5D classification and distress.

Results: In addition to EQ-5D health state classification, VAS score was influenced by the subject's perceived locus of control, and by her age, educational attainment, ethnic origin and smoking behaviour. Although the EQ-5D classification includes a distress dimension, the independent measure of distress was an additional determinant of VAS score. Changes in VAS score over time were explained by changes in both EQ-5D severities and distress. Women allocated to the experimental management arm of the trial reported an increase in VAS score, independently of any changes in health state and distress.

Conclusion: In this sample, EQ VAS scores were predictable from the EQ-5D health state classification, although there also existed other group variables which contributed systematically and independently towards determining such scores. These variables comprised psychological disposition, socio-demographic factors such as age and education, clinically-important distress, and the clinical intervention itself.

Trial registration: ISRCTN34841617.

References

    1. Rabin R, De Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQoL Group. Annals of Medicine. 2001;33:337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.
    1. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, Oppe S, Badia X, Busschbach J, Buxton M, Dolan P, Kind P, Krabbe P, et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study. European Journal of Health Economics. 2003;4:222–231. doi: 10.1007/s10198-003-0182-5.
    1. Brooks R, with the EuroQoL Group EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Krabbe P, Weijnen T. Guidelines for analysing and reporting EQ-5D outcomes. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, De Charro F, editor. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. pp. 7–19.
    1. de Wit A, Busschbach JJV, de Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Economics. 2000;9:109–126. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>;2-L.
    1. Happich M, von Lengerke T. Valuing the health state 'tinnitus': differences between patients and the general public. Hearing Research. 2005;207:50–58. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.04.002.
    1. Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Murt B, Sintonen H, Coons SJ. Comparison of Finnish and U.S.-based visual analog scale valuations of the EQ-5D measure. Medical Decision Making. 2000;20:281–289. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000304.
    1. McPherson K, Myers J, Taylor WJ, McNaughton HK, Weatherall M. Self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity in chronic and disabling conditions. Medical Care. 2004;42:1143–1151. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200411000-00014.
    1. Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sigsjö P, Varenhorst E. Pain and health-related quality of life in a geographically defined population of men with prostate cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 2001;85:497–503. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1965.
    1. Parkin D, Rice N, Jacoby A, Doughty J. Use of a visual analogue scale in a daily patient diary: modelling cross-sectional time-series data on health-related quality of life. Social Science and Medicine. 2004;59:351–360. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.015.
    1. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Ricci J-F, Bracco A. Performance of the EQ-5D in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Value in Health. 2006;9:90–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00086.x.
    1. Teresi JA, Fleishman JA. Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16:33–42. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9184-6.
    1. Llach XB, Herdman M, Schiaffino A. Determining correspondence between scores on the EQ-5D "thermometer" and a 5-point categorical rating scale. Medical Care. 1999;37:671–677. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199907000-00007.
    1. Franks P, Muennig P, Lubetkin E, Jia H. The burden of disease associated with being African-American in the United States and the contribution of socio-economic status. Social Science and Medicine. 2006;62:2469–2478. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.035.
    1. Gebhardt WA, Doef MP van der, Paul LB. The Revised Health Hardiness Inventory (RHHI-24); psychometric properties and relationship with self-reported health and health behavior in two Dutch samples. Health Education Research. 2001;16:579–592. doi: 10.1093/her/16.5.579.
    1. DeNeve KM, Copper H. The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 1998;124:197–229. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197.
    1. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Selai C. Understanding health state valuations: a qualitative analysis of respondents' comments. Quality of Life Research. 2004;13:1265–1277. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000037495.00959.9b.
    1. van Osch SMC, Stiggelbout AM. Understanding VAS valuations: qualitative data on the cognitive process. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14:2171–2175. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-6808-6.
    1. Lindeque BG. Management of cervical premalignant lesions. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2005;19:545–561. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.02.008.
    1. Soutter WP, Fletcher A. Invasive cancer of the cervix in women with mild dyskaryosis followed up cytologically. British Medical Journal. 1994;308:1421–1423.
    1. Flannelly G, Anderson D, Kitchener HC, Mann EMF, Campbell M, Fisher P, Walker F, Templeton AA. Management of women with mild and moderate cervical dyskaryosis. British Medical Journal. 1994;308:1399–1403.
    1. Flannelly G, Campbell MK, Meldrum P, Torgerson DJ, Templeton A, Kitchener HC. Immediate colposcopy or cytological surveillance for women with mild dyskariosis: a cost effectiveness analysis. Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1997;19:419–423.
    1. Jones MH. The management dilemma of the mildly abnormal smear: fact or fiction? Annals of the Academy of Medicine of Singapore. 1998;27:666–670.
    1. Cotton SC, Sharp L, Little J, Duncan I, Alexander L, Cruickshank ME, Gray NM, Jenkins D, Philips Z, Robertson A, et al. Trial of management of borderline and other low-grade abnormal smears (TOMBOLA): trial design. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2006;27:449–471. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.001.
    1. Gray NM, Sharp L, Cotton SC, Masson LF, Little J, Walker LG, Avis M, Philips Z, Russell I, Whynes D, et al. Psychological effects of a low-grade abnormal cervical smear test result: anxiety and associated factors. British Journal of Cancer. 2006;94:1253–1262. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603086.
    1. Herrmann C. International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a review of validation data and clinical results. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1997;42:17–41. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(96)00216-4.
    1. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2002;52:69–77. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00296-3.
    1. Wallston KA. The validity of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales. Journal of Health Psychology. 2005;10:623–631. doi: 10.1177/1359105305055304.
    1. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Economics. 1996;5:141–154. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>;2-N.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care. 1997;35:1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Morgan O, Baker A. Measuring deprivation in England and Wales using 2001 Carstairs scores. Health Statistics Quarterly. 2006;31:28–33.
    1. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293:1089–1099. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.9.1089.
    1. Sharp L, Cotton SC, Alexander L, Williams E, Gray NM, Reid JM, on behalf of the TOMBOLA Group Reasons for participation and non-participation in a randomised controlled trial: postal questionnaire surveys of women eligible for TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Clinical Trials. 2006;3:431–442. doi: 10.1177/1740774506070812.
    1. Jelsma J, Ferguson G. The determinants of self-reported health-related quality of life in a culturally and socially diverse South African community. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2004;82:206–212.
    1. Mozes B, Maor Y, Shmueli A. Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure? Quality of Life Research. 1999;8:269–273. doi: 10.1023/A:1008807419733.
    1. Fong GT, Hammond D, Laux FL, Zanna MP, Cummings KM, Borland R, Ross H. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2004;6:S341–S351. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331320743.
    1. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Melnikov J. Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio-demographic group? Health Economics. 2007;16:319–325. doi: 10.1002/hec.1152.
    1. Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Racial and ethnic differences in preference-based health status measure. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2006;22:2439–2448. doi: 10.1185/030079906X148391.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Chen S, Levin JR, Coons SJ. Racial/ethnic differences in preferences for the EQ-5D health states: results from the US valuation study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60:479–490. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.08.008.
    1. Lindström M, Sundquist J, Östergren P-O. Ethnic differences in self reported health in Malmö in southern Sweden. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2001;55:97–103. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.2.97.
    1. Whynes DK, Frew EJ, Philips ZN, Covey J, Smith RD. On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2007;28:462–476. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2006.07.002.
    1. Supina AL, Johnson JA, Patten SB, Williams JVA, Maxwell CJ. The usefulness of the EQ-5D in differentiating among persons with major depressive episode and anxiety. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16:749–754. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-9159-z.
    1. Günther OH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC, König H-H. The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression: a comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2008;105:81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.04.018.
    1. Essink-Bot MLE, Stuifbergen MC, Meerding WJ, Looman CWN, Bonsel GJ, the VOTE group Individual differences in the use of the response scale determine valuations of hypothetical health states: an empirical study. BMC Health Services Research. 2007;7
    1. Goodwin R, Engstrom G. Personality and the perception of health in the general population. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32:325–332.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다