What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews

Aureliano Paolo Finch, John Edward Brazier, Clara Mukuria, Aureliano Paolo Finch, John Edward Brazier, Clara Mukuria

Abstract

Objective: To assess the evidence on the validity and responsiveness of five commonly used preference-based instruments, the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL, by undertaking a review of reviews.

Methods: Four databases were investigated using a strategy refined through a highly sensitive filter for systematic reviews. References were screened and a search for grey literature was performed. Identified citations were scrutinized against pre-defined eligibility criteria and data were extracted using a customized extraction template. Evidence on known group validity, convergent validity and responsiveness was extracted and reviewed by narrative synthesis. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR checklist.

Results: Thirty reviews were included, sixteen of which were of excellent or good quality. The body of evidence, covering more than 180 studies, was heavily skewed towards EQ-5D, with significantly fewer studies investigating HUI3 and SF-6D, and very few the 15D and AQoL. There was also lack of head-to-head comparisons between GPBMs and the tests reported by the reviews were often weak. Where there was evidence, EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL seemed generally valid and responsive instruments, although not for all conditions. Evidence was not consistently reported across reviews.

Conclusions: Although generally valid, EQ-5D, SF-6D and HUI3 suffer from some problems and perform inconsistently in some populations. The lack of head-to-head comparisons and the poor reporting impedes the comparative assessment of the performance of GPBMs. This highlights the need for large comparative studies designed to test instruments' performance.

Keywords: Preference based measures; Psychometric properties; Quality of life; Review.

Conflict of interest statement

No funding was received for this project.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram

References

    1. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and “micro-utility effects”. Qual. Life Res. 2015;24:2045. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.
    1. Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Nice, D.S.U.: Technical support document 11: Alternatives to EQ5D for generating health state utility values. Report by Decision Support Unit. Mar. (2011)
    1. Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthc. 1993;9:463–468. doi: 10.1017/S0266462300005390.
    1. Tsuchiya A, Brazier B, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ5D and the SF6D value sets in the UK. J. Health Econ. 2006;25(2):334–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.003.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873. doi: 10.1002/hec.866.
    1. Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and healthcare evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.
    1. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
    1. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett LA. Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford: Oxford Medical Press; 1992.
    1. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S.: Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration. (2011). Accessed March 2011
    1. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G.: The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6: 6. (2009).
    1. CADTH database search filters. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa. (2014). Accessed 17 Febr 2015
    1. Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Anderson, N et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7: 10. (2007).
    1. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999;8:41–51. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::AID-HEC395>;2-#.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (rev. ed.) New York: Academic Press; 1977.
    1. World Health Organization. International classification of diseases. (2010)
    1. Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol. Assess. 2014;18(34):1–188. doi: 10.3310/hta18340.
    1. Papaioannou, D., Brazier, J., Parry. G.: How to measure quality of life for cost-effectiveness analyses in personality disorders: a systematic review. HEDS discussion paper 13/02. (2013)
    1. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14(6):907–920. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.006.
    1. Peasgood, T., Brazier, J., Papaioannou, D.: A systematic review of the validity and responsiveness of EQ5D and SF6D for depression and anxiety. HEDS discussion paper 12/15 (unpublished) (2012)
    1. Davis S, Wailoo A. A review of the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in people with urinary incontinence. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2013;11:20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-20.
    1. Derrett S, Black J, Herbison GP. Outcome after injury—a systematic literature search of studies using the EQ-5D. J. Trauma. 2009;67(4):883–890. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181ae6409.
    1. Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet. Med. 2011;28(4):395–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x.
    1. Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(8):759–773. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5.
    1. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol. Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224. doi: 10.3310/hta18090.
    1. Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:118. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.002.
    1. Yang Y, Longworth L, Brazier J. An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment. Qual. Life Res. 2013;22:2813. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0417-6.
    1. Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L. EQ5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2014;16:927. doi: 10.1007/s10198-014-0638-9.
    1. Petrillo J, van Nooten F, Jones P, Rutten-van Molken M. Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preference for change? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):917–932. doi: 10.2165/11589280-000000000-00000.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, Patel S, Stavem K, Lee TA. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir. Med. 2008;102(4):519–536. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365–384. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002.
    1. Szende A, Schramm W, Flood E, Larson P, Gorina E, Rentz AM, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment in adult haemophilia patients: a systematic review and evaluation of instruments. Haemophilia. 2003;9(6):678–687. doi: 10.1046/j.1351-8216.2003.00823.x.
    1. Wu AW, Hanson KA, Harding G, Haider S, Tawadrous M, Khachatryan A, et al. Responsiveness of the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapies. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2013;12:11.
    1. Dyer MTD, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.
    1. Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011;14(2):390–399. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002.
    1. Whitehurst DG, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord. 2012;50(9):646–654. doi: 10.1038/sc.2012.46.
    1. Castelino M, Abbott J, McElhone K, Teh LS. Comparison of the psychometric properties of health-related quality of life measures used in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: a review of the literature. Rheumatology. 2013;52:684. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes370.
    1. DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, Fourney DR, Vaccaro A, Wang J, et al. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1976;69–74:2011.
    1. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual. Life Res. 2005;14(7):1651–1668. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0.
    1. Linder JA, Singer DE, Ancker M, Atlas SJ. Measures of health-related quality of life for adults with acute sinusitis. A systematic review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2003;18(5):390–401. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20744.x.
    1. Hill MR, Noonan VK, Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, SCIRE Research Team Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(6):438–450. doi: 10.1038/sc.2009.164.
    1. Speight J, Reaney MD, Barnard KD. Not all roads lead to Rome—a review of quality of life measurement in adults with diabetes. Diabet. Med. 2009;26(4):315–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02682.x.
    1. Bansback N, Ara R, Karnon J, Anis A. Economic evaluations in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical review of measures used to define health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(5):395–408. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00004.
    1. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2003;111(1):469–480. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000036041.67101.48.
    1. Holloway L, Humphrey L, Heron L, Pilling C, Kitchen H, Hojbjerre L, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials: a review of content validity, face validity and psychometric performance. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2014;12:116. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0116-1.
    1. Sanghera S, Frew E, Kai J, Gupta J, Elizabeth RT. An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013;98:149–153. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.016.
    1. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multi-attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of health economics. Elsevier Science.: San Diego; 2014. pp. 341–357.
    1. Richardson, J., Cummins, R., Olsen, J., Kaplan, R., Coast, J., Schlander, M.: A cross-national comparison of 8 generic quality of life instruments. (2014)

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever