Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?

Brazier, John; Tsuchiya, Aki

doi:10.1002/hec.1580

Cited by 70 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One avoided any mention of MS (the unlabelled version of the survey, Survey 1), while the other explicitly stated that the health states described the impact of MS (the labelled version, Survey 2). In order to ensure that the results of the two surveys are comparable, the same preference elicitation methods were used for both surveys, and the same approach used for descriptive statistics and statistical analyses, consistent with current methodological guidance 16 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Naming and Framing”: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to ensure comparability between models, the same model specification was used for both labelled and unlabelled data 16 . Where a lower level of severity resulted in a greater decrement (higher negative coefficient) to the HSV than a higher level of severity, levels…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Naming and Framing”: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, EQ-5D-3L allows for comparisons of utilities across health conditions which in some cases are limited by the psychometric validity of the instrument in that area. By definition, condition specific measures do not allow for comparisons across health areas [29,30], but may provide a set of complementary utility values can be assessed alongside, for example, EQ-5D, to allow for more holistic measurement of the HRQL impacts of the condition. This might be particularly useful in settings where a particular measure is recommended, but evidence relating to that measure in certain health conditions is mixed (for example NICE recommending the EQ-5D in England) [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Epilepsy: EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is debate about the psychometric characteristics of the EQ-5D-3L for use in epilepsy. In response to these concerns, an epilepsy-specific preference-based measure (NEWQOL-6D) was developed. However the psychometric characteristics of NEWQOL-6D have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D for use in the assessment of treatments for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.Methods: The analysis used data from the Standard And New Antiepileptic Drugs (SANAD) trial including patients with focal epilepsy. We assessed convergent validity using correlations, and known group validity across different epilepsy and general health severity indicators using ANOVA and effect sizes. The responsiveness of the measures to change over time was assessed using standard response means (SRM). We also assessed agreement between the measures. Results: There was some level of convergence and agreement between the measures in terms of utility score, but divergence in the concepts measured by the descriptive systems. Both instruments displayed known group validity, with significant differences between severity groups, and generally slightly larger effect sizes for NEWQOL-6D across the epilepsy specific indicators. Evidence for responsiveness was less clear, with small to moderate SRMs demonstrating different levels of change across different indicators.Discussion: There was an overall tendency for the NEWQOL-6D to better reflect differences across groups, but this does not translate into large absolute utility differences. Both the EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D show some evidence of validity for providing utility values for economic evaluations in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

show abstract

“…Researchers were concerned that CS-PBM would lose the ability of comparability across disease areas, sometimes insensitive in measuring the side-effects which have differed symptoms from the condition, and lack of comprehensiveness in people with comorbidities due to the narrow scope [29,88]. However, the development of CS-PBM is argued to be valuable as it enriches the database of utilities measured by different approaches in a disease area where it exists limitations with current methods [29] and may provide valuable supplements to existing generic measures [88].…”

Section: Assessment Of Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the construct validity and responsiveness of preference-based quality of life measures in people with Parkinson’s: a systematic review

Xin

McIntosh

2016

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResultsTwenty-three of 2,758 studies were included, of which the majority evidence was for EQ-5D. Overall, good evidence of discriminant validity was demonstrated in the Health Utility Index (HUI)-3, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, 15D, HUI-2 and Disability and Distress Index (DDI). Nevertheless, HUI-2 and EQ-5D-3Lwere shown to be less sensitive among patients with mild Parkinson's. Moderate to strong correlations were shown between the PbQoL measures (EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, 15D, DDI, and HUI-II) andParkinson's-specific measures. Twelve studies provided evidence for the assessment of responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and one study for 15D, among which six studies reached inconsistent results between EQ-5D-3L and the Parkinson's-specific measures in measuring the change overtime. ConclusionsThe construct validity of the PbQoL measures was generally good, but there are concerns regarding their responsiveness to change. In Parkinson's, the inclusion of a Parkinson's-specific QoL measure or a generic but broader scoped mental and well-being focused measure to incorporate aspects not included in the common PbQoL measures is recommended. Keywords

show abstract

Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?

Abstract: No Abstract

Cited by 70 publications

References 16 publications

“Naming and Framing”: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis

“Naming and Framing”: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis

Comparing Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Epilepsy: EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D

Assessment of the construct validity and responsiveness of preference-based quality of life measures in people with Parkinson’s: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About