Generation, Selection, and Face Validation of Items for a New Generic Measure of Quality of Life: The EQ-HWB

被引:29
作者
Carlton, Jill [1 ]
Peasgood, Tessa [2 ]
Mukuria, Clara [1 ]
Connell, Janice [1 ]
Brazier, John [1 ]
Ludwig, Kristina [3 ]
Marten, Ole [3 ]
Kreimeier, Simone [3 ]
Engel, Lidia [4 ]
Belizan, Maria [5 ]
Yang, Zhihao [6 ]
Monteiro, Andrea [7 ]
Kuharic, Maja [7 ]
Luo, Nan [8 ]
Mulhern, Brendan [9 ]
Greiner, Wolfgang [3 ]
Pickard, Simon [7 ]
Augustovski, Federico [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, 30 Regent St, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Bielefeld Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Econ & Hlth Care Management, Bielefeld, Germany
[4] Deakin Univ, Sch Hlth & Social Dev, Deakin Hlth Econ, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[5] Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Inst Clin Effectiveness & Hlth Policy IECS, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[6] Guizhou Med Univ, Hlth Serv Management Dept, Guiyang, Peoples R China
[7] Univ Illinois, Coll Pharm, Dept Pharm Syst Outcomes & Policy, Chicago, IL USA
[8] Natl Univ Singapore, Saw Swee Hock Sch Publ Hlth, Singapore, Singapore
[9] Univ Technol Sydney, Ctr Hlth Econ Res & Evaluat, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
EQ-HWB; face validity; interviews; item selection; quality of life; PRO MEASURES; TASK-FORCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2021.12.007
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: This article aims to describe the generation and selection of items (stage 2) and face validation (stage 3) of a large international (multilingual) project to develop a new generic measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), for use in economic evaluation across health, social care, and public health to estimate quality-adjusted life-years. Methods: Items from commonly used generic, carer, social care, and mental health quality of life measures were mapped onto domains or subdomains identified from a literature review. Potential terms and items were reviewed and refined to ensure coverage of the construct of the domains/subdomain (stage 2). Input on the potential item pool, response options, and recall period was sought from 3 key stakeholder groups. The pool of candidate items was tested in qualitative interviews with potential future users in an international face validation study (stage 3). Results: Stage 2 resulted in the generation of 687 items. Predetermined selection criteria were applied by the research team resulting in 598 items being dropped, leaving 89 items that were reviewed by key stakeholder groups. Face validation (stage 3) tested 97 draft items and 4 response scales. A total of 47 items were retained and 14 were modified, whereas 3 were added to the candidate pool of items. This resulted in a 64-item set. Conclusions: This international multiculture, multilingual study with a common methodology identified many items that performed well across all countries. These were taken to the psychometric testing along with modified and new items for the EQ-HWB.
引用
收藏
页码:512 / 524
页数:13
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2014, Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Guidance for industry - patient reported outcomes
[3]  
Arafat S. Y., 2016, J BEHAV HLTH, V5, P129, DOI [10.5455/jbh.20160615121755, DOI 10.5455/JBH.20160615121755]
[4]  
Bradburn N., 2004, ASKING QUESTIONS DEF
[5]   The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results [J].
Brazier, John ;
Peasgood, Tessa ;
Mukuria, Clara ;
Marten, Ole ;
Kreimeier, Simone ;
Luo, Nan ;
Mulhern, Brendan ;
Pickard, A. Simon ;
Augustovski, Federico ;
Greiner, Wolfgang ;
Engel, Lidia ;
Belizan, Maria ;
Yang, Zhihao ;
Monteiro, Andrea ;
Kuharic, Maja ;
Gibbons, Luz ;
Ludwig, Kristina ;
Carlton, Jill ;
Connell, Janice ;
Rand, Stacey ;
Devlin, Nancy ;
Jones, Karen ;
Tsuchiya, Aki ;
Lovett, Rosemary ;
Naidoo, Bhash ;
Rowen, Donna ;
Carlos Rejon-Parrilla, Juan .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (04) :482-491
[6]   Future Directions in Valuing Benefits for Estimating QALYs: Is Time Up for the EQ-5D? [J].
Brazier, John Edward ;
Rowen, Donna ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Karimi, Milad .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 (01) :62-68
[7]   The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL) [J].
Connell, Janice ;
Carlton, Jill ;
Grundy, Andrew ;
Buck, Elizabeth Taylor ;
Keetharuth, Anju Devianee ;
Ricketts, Thomas ;
Barkham, Michael ;
Robotham, Dan ;
Rose, Diana ;
Brazier, John .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2018, 27 (07) :1893-1902
[8]   Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England [J].
Devlin, Nancy J. ;
Shah, Koonal K. ;
Feng, Yan ;
Mulhern, Brendan ;
van Hout, Ben .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2018, 27 (01) :7-22
[9]   COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures [J].
Gagnier, Joel J. ;
Lai, Jianyu ;
Mokkink, Lidwine B. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2021, 30 (08) :2197-2218
[10]  
Johnson R. L., 2016, Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting