Validation of EQ-5D and 15D in the assessment of health-related quality of life in chronic pain

Vartiainen, Pekka; Mäntyselkä, Pekka; Heiskanen, Tarja; Hagelberg, Nora; Mustola, Seppo; Forssell, Heli; Kautiainen, Hannu; Kalso, Eija

doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000954

Cited by 59 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This phenomenon has previously been observed in studies addressing other medical conditions [ 32 , 67 , 68 ]. There are many possible explanations for these discrepancies: different number of dimensions, the EQ-5D has generally been valued using TTO rather than VAS [ 69 ], the preference weights have come from different populations (a Finnish value set is usually adopted for 15D) [ 67 ], and the EQ-5D, unlike the 15D, can take negative values [ 69 , 70 ]. The participants’ characteristics might have also affected study results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

Meregaglia

Cairns

2017

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealth state utility values (HSUVs) are essential parameters in model-based economic evaluations. This study systematically identifies HSUVs in head and neck cancer and provides guidance for selecting them from a growing body of health-related quality of life studies.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the published literature by searching PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using a pre-defined combination of keywords. The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) specifically containing health utilities were also queried, in addition to the Health Economics Research Centre database of mapping studies. Studies were considered for inclusion if reporting original HSUVs assessed using established techniques. The characteristics of each study including country, design, sample size, cancer subsite addressed and demographics of responders were summarized narratively using a data extraction form. Quality scoring and critical appraisal of the included studies were performed based on published recommendations.ResultsOf a total 1048 records identified by the search, 28 studies qualified for data extraction and 346 unique HSUVs were retrieved from them. HSUVs were estimated using direct methods (e.g. standard gamble; n = 10 studies), multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs; n = 13) and mapping techniques (n = 3); two studies adopted both direct and indirect approaches. Within the MAUIs, the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) was the most frequently used (n = 11), followed by the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3; n = 2), the 15D (n = 2) and the Short Form-Six Dimension (SF-6D; n = 1). Different methods and types of responders (i.e. patients, healthy subjects, clinical experts) influenced the magnitude of HSUVs for comparable health states. Only one mapping study developed an original algorithm using head and neck cancer data. The identified studies were considered of intermediate quality.DiscussionThis review provides a dataset of HSUVs systematically retrieved from published studies in head and neck cancer. There is currently a lack of research for some disease phases including recurrent and metastatic cancer, and treatment-related complications. In selecting HSUVs for cost-effectiveness modeling purposes, preference should be given to EQ-5D utility values; however, mapping to EQ-5D is a potentially valuable technique that should be further developed in this cancer population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-017-0748-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

Meregaglia

Cairns

2017

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Panel C: Hazard Ratios with 95% confidence intervals for mortality per SD of the 15D scores in eight samples and in combined data of the studies. 3 (N=214)…”

Section: Legend To Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Older people suffering from loneliness ('Loneliness') 7 (N=208) Participants rated their health on the scale: very good/good/poor/very poor, with very good/good considered to good. 3 Dementia diagnoses were either self-reported (HBS, Spousal caregivers, Older people suffering from loneliness, Population sample), retrieved from medical records (Nursing home residents) or confirmed with thorough diagnostics (DEBATE, home-dwelling people with dementia, DELIRIUM); 4 MMSE=Mini-mental State Examination (Folstein et al 1975); 5 Charlson comorbidity index (Charlson et al 1987); 6 15D = generic measure for health-related quality-of-life (Sintonen 2001); 7 Only participants from Eloniemi-Sulkava et al 2009 study responded to this questions. 8 The differences between the cohorts were tested by X 2 test for categorical variables, Kruskall Wallis and ANOVA tests for continuous variables and Log Rank test for mortality.…”

Section: Legend To Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several measurement scales available to measure HRQoL in older adults, with various emphases on different dimensions of health (3). Both disease specific and generic measures exist, and based on the underlying concept of health and well-being, they may include various dimensions such as emotions, cognitive function, economic status, and intelligence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality in heterogeneous samples of older adults

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured in eight cohorts of older adults with multimorbidities and various functional, cognitive, psychological or social disabilities. • 15D, a generic HRQoL predicted independently and significantly the 2-year survival in the total sample. • However, 15D did not predict mortality in samples of spousal caregivers and lonely older adults. • In older populations suffering from psychological and social impairments such as caregiver burden or loneliness HRQoL may not be the appropriate tool to detect those at risk.

show abstract

“…Also, the recently published VAPAIN consensus statement lists HRQoL as one of the key domains to be measured in trials assessing MPM (Kaiser et al, ). Recently, two HRQoL measures, the EQ‐5D‐3L and the 15D were validated in patients with chronic pain (Vartiainen et al, ). Both instruments were valid, but the 15D appeared somewhat more sensitive than the EQ‐5D‐3L in measuring pain‐related symptoms (Vartiainen et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health‐related quality of life change in patients treated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic

Vartiainen

Heiskanen

Sintonen

et al. 2019

European Journal of Pain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Multidisciplinary pain management (MPM) is a generally accepted method for treating chronic pain, but heterogeneous outcome measures provide only limited conclusions concerning its effectiveness. Therefore, further studies on the effectiveness of MPM are needed to identify subgroups of patients who benefit, or do not benefit, from these interventions. Our aim was to analyse health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) changes after MPM and to identify factors associated with treatment outcomes. Methods We carried out a real world observational follow‐up study of chronic pain patients referred to a tertiary multidisciplinary outpatient pain clinic to describe, using the validated HRQoL instrument 15D, the HRQoL change after MPM and to identify factors associated with this change. 1,043 patients responded to the 15D HRQoL questionnaire at baseline and 12 months after the start of treatment. Background data were collected from the pre‐admission questionnaire of the pain clinic. Results Fifty‐three percent of the patients reported a clinically important improvement and, of these, 81% had a major improvement. Thirty‐five percent reported a clinically important deterioration, and 12% had no change in HRQoL. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that major improvement was positively associated with shorter duration of pain (<3 years), worse baseline HRQoL, higher education levels and being employed. Conclusions The majority of the patients reported significant HRQoL improvement after multidisciplinary pain management. Better understanding of the factors associated with treatment outcomes is needed to meet the needs of those who had unfavourable outcomes. Significance Multidisciplinary pain management (MPM) increases the health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in most patients. More research into factors associated with HRQoL change is needed to understand why not all patients benefit from MPM and how MPM approaches could be improved to meet the needs of these patients.

show abstract

Validation of EQ-5D and 15D in the assessment of health-related quality of life in chronic pain

Cited by 59 publications

References 48 publications

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality in heterogeneous samples of older adults

Health‐related quality of life change in patients treated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About