The development and preliminary validation of a Preference-Based Stroke Index (PBSI)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Ann E Clarke¹  Sharon Wood-Dauphinee²  Nancy E Mayo⁴  Lise Poissant³ 

[1] McGill University, Division of Clinical Immunology/Allergy and Clinical Epidemiology, Montreal General Hospital, 1650 Cedar Ave, Montreal, H3G 1A4, Canada;McGill University, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, School of Physical and Occupational Therapys, 3630 Promenade Sir-William-Osler, Montréal, Québec, H3G 1Y5, Canada;McGill University, Health Informatics Research Group, 1140 Pine Ave West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A3, Canada;McGill University, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, R4.05, 687 Pine Ave West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A1, Canada

关键词: Health Index;    Patients' Preferences;    Stroke;   

Others  :  1217101
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-1-43

 received in 2003-02-27, accepted in 2003-09-10,  发布年份 2003

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a key issue in disabling conditions like stroke. Unfortunately, HRQL is often difficult to quantify in a comprehensive measure that can be used in cost analyses. Preference-based HRQL measures meet this challenge. To date, there are no existing preference-based HRQL measure for stroke that could be used as an outcome in clinical and economic studies of stroke. The aim of this study was to develop the first stroke-specific health index, the Preference-based Stroke Index (PBSI).

Methods

The PBSI includes 10 items; walking, climbing stairs, physical activities/sports, recreational activities, work, driving, speech, memory, coping and self-esteem. Each item has a 3-point response scale. Items known to be impacted by a stroke were selected. Scaling properties and preference-weights obtained from individuals with stroke and their caregivers were used to develop a cumulative score.

Results

Compared to the EQ-5D, the PBSI showed no ceiling effect in a high-functioning stroke population. Moderately high correlations were found between the physical function (r = 0.78), vitality (r = 0.67), social functioning (r = 0.64) scales of the SF-36 and the PBSI. The lowest correlation was with the role emotional scale of the SF-36 (r = 0.32). Our results indicated that the PBSI can differentiate patients by severity of stroke (p < 0.05) and level of functional independence (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Content validity and preliminary evidence of construct validity has been demonstrated. Further work is needed to develop a multiattribute utility function to gather information on psychometric properties of the PBSI.

【 授权许可】

   
2003 Poissant et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Patrick DL, Deyo RA: Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989, 27:S217-S232.
• [2]Rubenstein LV: Quality of life for patients: diagnosis or screening, or to evaluate treatment. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven 1996, 363-373.
• [3]Whiteneck GG: Measuring what matters: key rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994, 75:1073-1076.
• [4]Nunes JF: Economic evaluation of rehabilitation: The quality of life approach using EuroQol. Int Adv Econ Res 1998, 4:192-201.
• [5]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [6]Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, et al.: The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999, 30:2131-2140.
• [7]Saladin LK: Measuring quality of life post-stroke. Neur Rep 2000, 24:133-139.
• [8]Duncan PW, Horner RD, Reker DA, et al.: Adherence to postacute rehabilitation guidelines is associated with functional recovery in stroke. Stroke 2002, 33:167-177.
• [9]Dorman PJ, Slattery J, Farrell B, et al.: A randomised comparison of the EuroQol and Short Form-36 after stroke. Br Med J 1997, 23:461.
• [10]Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, et al.: Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke 1997, 28:1876-1882.
• [11]Dorman PJ, Dennis M, Sandercock P: How do scores on the EuroQol relate to scores on the SF-36 after stroke? Stroke 1999, 30:2146-2151.
• [12]Cella DF: Quality of Life: Concepts and definition. J PainSymptom Manage 1994, 9:186-192.
• [13]Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al.: Multi-attribute preference functions – Health Utilities Index. PharmaEcon 1995, 7:503-520.
• [14]Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al.: Reliability of the Health Utilities Index – Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian general social survey health questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995, 4:249-257.
• [15]EuroQol Group: EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 1990, 16:199-208.
• [16]Kind P: The EuroQol Instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven 1996, 191-201.
• [17]Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC: Health status: Types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976, 11:478-507.
• [18]Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P: Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:169-180.
• [19]Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, et al.: Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. Stroke 1998, 29:63-68.
• [20]Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, et al.: Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke 1997, 28:1883-1887.
• [21]Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W: Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care 2000, 38:290-299.
• [22]Mathias SD, Bates MM, Pasta DJ, et al.: Use of the Health Utilities Index with stroke patients and their caregivers. Stroke 1997, 28:1888-1893.
• [23]ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning and Disability. Beta-2 draft 1999.
• [24]Pedersen PM, Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, et al.: Aphasia in acute stroke: Incidence, determinants and recovery. Ann Neur 1995, 38:659-666.
• [25]Kotila M, Waltimo O, Niemi ML, et al.: The profile of recovery from stroke and factors influencing outcome. Stroke 1984, 15:1039-1044.
• [26]Pohjasvaara T, Erkinjuntti T, Vataja R, et al.: Dementia three months after stroke. Baseline frequency and effect of different definitions of dementia in the helsinki stroke aging memory study (SAM) cohort. Stroke 1997, 28:785-792.
• [27]Anderson CS, Linto J, Stewart-Wynne EG: A population-based assessment of the impact and burden of caregiving for long-term stroke survivors. Stroke 1995, 26:843-849.
• [28]Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, et al.: Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment. Chest 1998, 114:998-1007.
• [29]Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, et al.: Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual Life Res 1998, 7:693-702.
• [30]Mayo NE: Hospitalization and case-fatality rates for stroke in Canada from 1982 through 1991. The Canadian collaborative study group of stroke hospitalizations. Stroke 1996, 27:1215-1220.
• [31]Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, et al.: Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999, 21:258-268.
• [32]Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional evaluation: The Barthel lndex. Maryland Med J 1965, 14:61-65.
• [33]McDowell I, Newell C: Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and Questionnaires. 1996.
• [34]Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI: Reintegration to Normal Living as a proxy to quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40:491-502.
• [35]Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12:189-198.
• [36]Fleiss JL: Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley 1981.
• [37]Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Streiner DL, et al.: Clinical impact versus factor analysis for quality of life questionnaire construction. J Clin Epid 1997, 50:233-238.
• [38]Langley GB, Shephard H: The visual analogue scale: Its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int 1985, 5:145-148.
• [39]Nunnally J: Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill 1978.
• [40]Likert R: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psy 1932, 140:5-55.
• [41]Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, et al.: There's no place like home: An evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke 2000, 31:1016-1023.
• [42]Dolan P: Modelling valuations for health states: The effect of duration. Health Pol 1996, 38:189-203.
• [43]Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, et al.: Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery:The Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 76:406-412.
• [44]Côté R, Battista RN, Wolfson C, et al.: The Canadian Neurological Scale: validation and reliability assessment. Neuro 1989, 39:638-643.
• [45]Roy CW, Togneri J, Hay E, et al.: An inter-rater reliability study of the Barthel Index. Int J Rehabil Res 1988, 11:67-70.
• [46]Desmond DW, Moroney JT, Sano M, et al.: Recovery of cognitive function after stroke. Stroke 1996, 27:1798-1803.
• [47]Pohjasvaara T, Erkinjuntti T, Vataja R, et al.: Comparison of stroke features and disability in daily life in patients with ischemic stroke aged 55 to 70 and 71 to 85 years. Stroke 1997, 28:729-735.
• [48]Montgomery H, Persson LO, Ryden A: Importance and attainment of life values among disabled and non-disabled people. Scand J Rehabil Med 1996, 28:233-240.
• [49]Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al.: Predicting quality of well-being scores form the SF-36: Results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Dec Making 1997, 17:1-9.
• [50]Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, et al.: Quality of life measurement after stroke: uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke 2002, 33:1348-1356.
• [51]Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: A general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark2. Pharmacoeconomics 1999, 15:141-155.
• [52]Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, et al.: A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The Patient-Generated Index. Med Care 1994, 32:1109-1126.
• [53]Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, et al.: Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke 1999, 30:1362-1369.
• [54]Wolfe F, Hawley DJ: Measurement of the quality of life in rheumatic disorders using the EuroQol. Bri J Rheumatol 1997, 36:786-793.
• [55]Fransen M, Edmonds J: Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatol (Oxford) 1999, 38:807-813.
• [56]Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, et al.: Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke 1997, 28:740-745.
• [57]Shin AY, Porter PJ, Wallace MC, et al.: Quality of life of stroke in younger individuals. Utility assessment in patients with arteriovenous malformations. Stroke 1997, 28:2395-2399.
• [58]Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Goldstein L, et al.: Utilities for major stroke: Results from a survey of preferences among persons at increased risk for stroke. Am Heart J 1980, 136:1703-713.
• [59]Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK: The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Int Med 1996, 156:1829-1836.
• [60]Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP: The utility of health states after stroke – A systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001, 32:1425-1429.
• [61]Boyle MH, Torrance GW: Developing multiattribute indexes. Med Care 1984, 22:1045-1057.
• [62]Kaplan RM, Ganiats T, Sieber W, et al.: The Quality of Well-Being scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care 1998, 10:509-520.