Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearch

Standard

Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. / Moock, Jörn; Kohlmann, Thomas.
In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, 01.04.2008, p. 485-495.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearch

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{6e82ef32aec349bb9ea2c2df292f7e36,
title = "Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders",
abstract = "ObjectivesTo compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.MethodsPatients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.ResultsMean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.ConclusionsResults obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.",
keywords = "Health sciences, Preference-based HRQoL, Head-to-head comparison, EQ-5D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, 15D, QWB-SA",
author = "J{\"o}rn Moock and Thomas Kohlmann",
note = "MEDLINE{\textregistered} is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.",
year = "2008",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "485--495",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures

T2 - Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders

AU - Moock, Jörn

AU - Kohlmann, Thomas

N1 - MEDLINE® is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.

PY - 2008/4/1

Y1 - 2008/4/1

N2 - ObjectivesTo compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.MethodsPatients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.ResultsMean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.ConclusionsResults obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.

AB - ObjectivesTo compare the EQ-5D, 15D, HUI 2, HUI 3, SF-6D, and QWB-SA in terms of their descriptive statistics, score distribution, agreement and responsiveness in a sample of German rehabilitation inpatients.MethodsPatients with musculoskeletal (N = 106), cardiovascular (N = 88), and psychosomatic (N = 70) disorders completed questionnaires at the beginning (baseline) and end (follow-up) of their inpatient treatment. Comparisons addressed the proportion of missing data, distributional properties, agreement, and responsiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-tests, and standardized response means (SRM) were computed.ResultsMean index scores at baseline ranged from 0.48 (HUI 3; psychosomatic) to 0.86 (15D; cardiovascular). At baseline, ceiling effects across all patient groups ranged from zero (SF-6D; cardiovascular and psychosomatic) to 21.6% (EQ-5D; cardiovascular). ICCs ranged from 0.26 (EQ-5D–QWB-SA; cardiovascular) to 0.80 (HUI 2–HUI 3; musculoskeletal). Substantial differences in responsiveness were observed between measures.ConclusionsResults obtained with different preference-based quality-of-life measures in a sample of patients with mild to moderate disease severity are not equivalent. As differences between measures may have considerable effects in health economic evaluation studies, careful selection of instruments for a given study is essential.

KW - Health sciences

KW - Preference-based HRQoL

KW - Head-to-head comparison

KW - EQ-5D

KW - HUI 2

KW - HUI 3

KW - SF-6D

KW - 15D

KW - QWB-SA

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41149145533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/11049caa-b14c-3f42-8fe2-dcbd335d6f5b/

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6

DO - 10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:41149145533

VL - 17

SP - 485

EP - 495

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 3

ER -

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Determinants of promotions in an internal labour market
  2. Process limits of extrusion of multimaterial components
  3. Unusual two‐bond 13C, 13C coupling constants in sulphones
  4. Design and control of an electromagnetic valve actuator
  5. Verfahren und Einrichtung zum Regeln einer Regelgröße
  6. A toolkit for robust risk assessment using F-divergences
  7. Parameterized Synthetic Image Data Set for Fisheye Lens
  8. Risk preferences under heterogeneous environmental risk
  9. Accurate welding line prediction in extrusion processes
  10. Risk preferences under heterogeneous environmental risk
  11. Assessing Trust by Disclosure in Online Social Networks
  12. Die Bewertung des Informationssystems einer Unternehmung
  13. Image compression based on periodic principal components
  14. Representation of Integration Profiles Using an Ontology
  15. Intra-firm Wage Compression and Cost Coverage of Training
  16. Intermetallic phase characteristics in the Mg–Nd–Zn system
  17. Markups and Concentration in the Context of Digitization
  18. The reputation costs of executive misconduct accusations
  19. Linear free vibrations with uncertain initial conditions
  20. Efficiency of rational learning with private information
  21. The reputation costs of executive misconduct accusations
  22. Imperfect information and consumer inflation expectations
  23. Neural Combinatorial Optimization on Heterogeneous Graphs
  24. BRANGE EFFECTS IN HEDONIC EVALUATION OF OLFACTORY STIMULI
  25. Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide
  26. Financing behavior in new ventures - Evidence from Germany
  27. Planning and control of logistics for offshore wind farms
  28. On the Thermoregulation in the human microvascular system
  29. Handlungsregulation bei der Steuerung chaotischer Systeme
  30. The role of the situation model in mathematical modelling
  31. Dynamische und zukunftsorientierte Bestandsdimensionierung
  32. Cross-document coreference resolution using latent features
  33. Friction riveting of 3D printed polyamide 6 with AA 6056-T6
  34. Können plakatbezogene Nudges zum Treppensteigen animieren?