Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants

被引:76
作者
McDonough, CM
Grove, MR
Tosteson, TD
Lurie, JD
Hilibrand, AS
Tosteson, ANA
机构
[1] Dartmouth Coll Sch Med, Multidisciplinary Clin Res Ctr Musculoskeletal Di, Hanover, NH USA
[2] Dartmouth Coll Sch Med, Ctr Evaluat Clin Sci, Hanover, NH USA
[3] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Rothman Inst, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
economic evaluation; health status indicators; Quality of Life; Spinal Diseases; SPORT;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-004-5743-2
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: To compare societal values across health-state classification systems and to describe the performance of these systems at baseline in a large population of persons with confirmed diagnosis of intervertebral disc herniation (IDH), spinal stenosis (SpS), or degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Methods: We compared values for EQ-5D (York weights), HUI (Mark 2 and 3), SF-6D, and the SF-36-derived estimate of the Quality of Well Being (eQWB) score using signed rank tests. We tested each instrument's ability to discriminate between health categories and level of symptom satisfaction. Correlations were assessed with Spearman rank correlations. We evaluated ceiling and floor effects by comparing the proportion at the highest and the lowest possible score for each tool. In addition, we compared proportions at the highest and lowest levels by dimension. The number of unique health states assigned was compared across instruments. We calculated the difference between those who were very dissatisfied and all others. Results: Mean values ranged from 0.39 to 0.63 among 2097 participants ages 18-93 (mean age 53, 47 female) with significant differences in pair-wise comparisons noted for all systems. Correlations ranged from 0.30 to 0.78. Although all systems showed statistically significant differences in health state values when baseline comparisons were made between those who were very dissatisfied with their symptoms and those who were not, the magnitude of this difference ranged widely across systems. Mean differences (95 CI) between those very dissatisfied and all others were 0.30 (0.269, 0.329) for EQ-5D, 0.22 (0.190, 0.241) for HUI(3), 0.18 (0.161, 0.201) for HUI(2), 0.11 (0.095, 0.117) for SF-6D, 0.04 (0.039, 0.049) for eQWB, and 0.07 (0.056, 0.077) for VAS (with transformation applied to group means). Conclusion: Differences in preference-weighted health state classification systems are evident at baseline in a population with confirmed IDH, SpS, and DS. Caution should be used when comparing health state values derived from various systems.
引用
收藏
页码:1321 / 1332
页数:12
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
Belanger A, 2000, HEAD TO HEAD COMP 2
[2]  
BIRKMEYER J, 2000, DARTMOUTH ATLAS MUSC, P28
[3]  
Birkmeyer NJO, 2002, SPINE, V27, P1361, DOI 10.1097/00007632-200206150-00020
[4]  
Bombardier C, 2001, J RHEUMATOL, V28, P431
[5]   RELIABILITY OF THE HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX - MARK-III USED IN THE 1991 CYCLE-6 CANADIAN GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
BOYLE, MH ;
FURLONG, W ;
FEENY, D ;
TORRANCE, GW ;
HATCHER, J .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1995, 4 (03) :249-257
[6]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[7]   Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey [J].
Brazier, J ;
Usherwood, T ;
Harper, R ;
Thomas, K .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1115-1128
[8]  
BRAZIER J, 2001, P 18 PLEN M EUR GROU, P9
[9]  
Brazier J, 1999, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V3, P57
[10]   EuroQol: The current state of play [J].
Brooks, R .
HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 37 (01) :53-72