Assessing the construct validity and responsiveness of Preference-Based Measures (PBMs) in cataract surgery patients

被引:8
作者
Breheny, Katie [1 ]
Hollingworth, William [1 ]
Kandiyali, Rebecca [1 ]
Dixon, Padraig [1 ]
Loose, Abi [2 ]
Craggs, Pippa [2 ]
Grzeda, Mariusz [2 ]
Sparrow, John [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Populat Hlth Sci, Bristol, Avon, England
[2] Bristol Eye Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Bristol, Avon, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Cataract; EQ-5D; ICECAP-O; Bolt-on; Responsiveness; Validity; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; BOLT-ON; HEALTH; EQ-5D; QUESTIONNAIRE; UTILITY; PERFORMANCE; CAT-PROM5; EUROQOL;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-020-02443-3
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose The validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in visual conditions has been questioned, inspiring development of a vision 'bolt-on' domain (EQ-5D-3L + VIS). Developments in preference-based measures (PBM) also includes the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-O capability wellbeing measure. This study aimed to examine the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L + VIS and ICECAP-O in cataract surgery patients for the first time, to inform choice of PBM for economic evaluation in this population. Methods The analyses used data from the UK Predict-CAT cataract surgery cohort study. PBMs and the Cat-PROM5 [a validated measure of cataract quality of life (QOL)] were completed before surgery and 4-8 weeks after. Construct validity was assessed using correlations and known-group differences evaluated using regression. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect sizes and analysis of variance to compare change scores between groups, defined by patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Results The sample comprised 1315 patients at baseline. No PBMs were associated with visual acuity and only the ICECAP-O (Spearman's rs = - 0.35), EQ-5D-3L + VIS (rs = - 0.42) and EQ-5D-5L (Value Set for England rs = - 0.31) correlated at least moderately with the Cat-PROM5. Effect sizes of change were consistently largest for the EQ-5D-3L + VIS (range 0.34-0.41), followed by the ICECAP-O (range 0.20-0.34). Results indicated no improvement in responsiveness using the EQ-5D-5L (range 0.13-0.16) compared to the EQ-5D-3L (range 0.17-0.20). Conclusions Whilst no PBMs comprehensively demonstrated evidence of construct validity and responsiveness in cataract surgery patients, the ICECAP-O was the most responsive generic PBM to improvements in QOL. Surprisingly the EQ-5D-5L was not more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L in this setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1935 / 1946
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] PREFERENCE-BASED CONDITION-SPECIFIC MEASURES OF HEALTH: WHAT HAPPENS TO CROSS PROGRAMME COMPARABILITY?
    Brazier, John
    Tsuchiya, Aki
    HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2010, 19 (02) : 125 - 129
  • [32] Assessing Dimensionality and Responsiveness of Outcomes Measures for Patients with Low Back Pain
    Cleland, Josh
    Gillani, Rabya
    Bienen, E. Jay
    Sadosky, Alesia
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2011, 11 (01) : 57 - 69
  • [33] Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with somatoform disorders
    Brettschneider, Christian
    Koenig, Hans-Helmut
    Herzog, Wolfgang
    Kaufmann, Claudia
    Schaefert, Rainer
    Konnopka, Alexander
    HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2013, 11
  • [34] Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome) Introduction
    Brazier, J. E.
    Rowen, D.
    Mavranezouli, I.
    Tsuchiya, A.
    Young, T.
    Yang, Y.
    Barkham, M.
    Ibbotson, R.
    HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2012, 16 (32) : 1 - +
  • [35] What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews
    Finch, Aureliano Paolo
    Brazier, John Edward
    Mukuria, Clara
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2018, 19 (04) : 557 - 570
  • [36] A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models
    Brazier, John
    Ara, Roberta
    Rowen, Donna
    Chevrou-Severac, Helene
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2017, 35 : S21 - S31
  • [37] Developing preference-based measures for diabetes: DHP-3D and DHP-5D
    Mulhern, B.
    Labeit, A.
    Rowen, D.
    Knowles, E.
    Meadows, K.
    Elliott, J.
    Brazier, J.
    DIABETIC MEDICINE, 2017, 34 (09) : 1264 - 1275
  • [38] Shoulder-specific disability measures showed acceptable construct validity and responsiveness
    Staples, Margaret P.
    Forbes, Andrew
    Green, Sally
    Buchbinder, Rachelle
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (02) : 163 - 170
  • [39] Preference-based quality of life measures in people with visual impairment
    Kymes, Steven M.
    Lee, Bryan S.
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2007, 84 (08) : 809 - 816
  • [40] Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures: Benefit or Burden?
    Versteegh, Matthijs M.
    Leunis, Annemieke
    Uyl-de Groot, Carin A.
    Stolk, Elly A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2012, 15 (03) : 504 - 513