Development of the Incontinence Utility Index: estimating population-based utilities associated with urinary problems from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire and Neurogenic Module

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Donald L Patrick²  Denise Globe³  Catherine Waweru³  Kristin M Khalaf³  Nacho Castejón¹  Jesús Cuervo¹ 

[1] LASER Analytica, C/Azcárraga 12 A, Oviedo, 33010, Asturias, Spain;Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;Allergan Inc, Irvine, California, USA

关键词: Multi-attribute theory;    Quality of life;    Preference;    Utility;    Urinary incontinence;    Overactive bladder;   

Others  :  1164514
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0147-7

 received in 2014-06-06, accepted in 2014-09-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Generic utility instruments may not fully capture the impact and consequences of urinary problems. Condition-specific preference-based measures, developed from previously validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes instruments, may add relevant information for economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop a condition-specific preference-based measure, the Incontinence Utility Index (IUI), for valuing health states associated with urinary problems.

Methods

A two-step process was implemented. First, an abbreviated health state classification system was developed from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire (I-QOL) and Neurogenic Module by applying Rasch modelling, classical psychometrical testing and expert criteria to data from two pivotal trials comprised of neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) patients. Criterion, convergent validity and concordance with the original instrument was assessed in the abbreviated version. Then, a multi-attribute utility function (MAUF) was estimated from a representative sample of the UK non-institutionalized adult general population. Visual analogue and time-trade off (TTO) evaluations were applied in the elicitation process. Predictive validity of the MAUF was tested comparing estimated and direct utility scores.

Results

The abbreviated health state classification system generated from the NDO sample contained 5 attributes with 3 levels of response and had adequate psychometrical properties: significant differences in scores according to the reduction in the frequency of urinary incontinence episodes [UIE] (p?

Conclusions

The newly developed IUI is a preference-based measure for urinary problems related to NDO that provides general population-based utility scores with adequate predictive validity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00461292 webcite, NCT00311376 webcite.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Cuervo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Kopp ZS, Ebel-Bitoun C, Milsom I, Chapple C: The impact of overactive bladder on mental health, work productivity and health-related quality of life in the UK and Sweden: results from EpiLUTS. BJU Int 2011, 108:1459-1471.
• [2]Ganz ML, Smalarz AM, Krupski TL, Anger JT, Hu JC, Wittrup-Jensen KU, Pashos CL: Economic costs of overactive bladder in the United States. Urology 2010, 75:526-532. 532
• [3]Reeves P, Irwin D, Kelleher C, Milsom I, Kopp Z, Calvert N, Lloyd A: The current and future burden and cost of overactive bladder in five European countries. Eur Urol 2006, 50:1050-1057.
• [4]Wu EQ, Birnbaum H, Marynchenko M, Mareva M, Williamson T, Mallett D: Employees with overactive bladder: work loss burden. J Occup Environ Med 2005, 47:439-446.
• [5]Abrams P, Artibani W, Cardozo L, Dmochowski R, van Kerrebroeck P, Sand P: Reviewing the ICS 2002 terminology report: the ongoing debate.Neurourol Urodyn 2009, 28:287.
• [6]Schurch B, Denys P, Kozma CM, Reese PR, Slaton T, Barron R: Reliability and validity of the Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire in patients with neurogenic urinary incontinence. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007, 88:646-652.
• [7]Tapia CI, Khalaf K, Berenson K, Globe D, Chancellor M, Carr LK: Health-related quality of life and economic impact of urinary incontinence due to detrusor overactivity associated with a neurologic condition: a systematic review.Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-13. 13¿11.
• [8]EuroQol¿a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [9]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [10]Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996, 34:702-722.
• [11]Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M: Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002, 40:113-128.
• [12]Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21:271-292.
• [13]Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1115-1128.
• [14]Franks P, Hanmer J, Fryback DG: Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Care 2006, 44:478-485.
• [15]O¿Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J: A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003, 12:975-981.
• [16]Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003, 41:791-801.
• [17]Pinto AM, Kuppermann M, Nakagawa S, Vittinghoff E, Wing RR, Kusek JW, Herman WH, Subak LL: Comparison and correlates of three preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence. Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1655-1662.
• [18]McDonough CM, Tosteson AN: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007, 25:93-106.
• [19]Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G: How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? a systematic review. Value Health 2011, 14:907-920.
• [20]Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Lall R, Smith JF, Lamb SE: EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:475-483.
• [21]Oh SJ, Ku JH: Is a generic quality of life instrument helpful for evaluating women with urinary incontinence? Qual Life Res 2006, 15:493-501.
• [22]Finkelstein MM, Skelly J, Kaczorowski J, Swanson G: Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument in a survey of primary care physicians.J Fam Pract 2002, 51:952.
• [23]Davis S, Wailoo A: A review of the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in people with urinary incontinence.Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:20.
• [24]Coyne K, Revicki D, Hunt T, Corey R, Stewart W, Bentkover J, Kurth H, Abrams P: Psychometric validation of an overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire: the OAB-q. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:563-574.
• [25]Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S: A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997, 104:1374-1379.
• [26]Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Bavendam TG, Martin ML, Buesching DP: Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology 1996, 47:67-71.
• [27]Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Yalcin I, Wagner TH, Buesching DP: Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology 1999, 53:71-76.
• [28]Patrick DL, Khalaf KM, Dmochowski R, Kowalski JW, Globe DR: Psychometric performance of the incontinence quality-of-life questionnaire among patients with overactive bladder and urinary incontinence. Clin Ther 2013, 35:836-845.
• [29]Reese PR, Pleil AM, Okano GJ, Kelleher CJ: Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King¿s Health Questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:427-442.
• [30]Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K: Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health 2009, 12:159-166.
• [31]Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C: Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King¿s Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:113-126.
• [32]Kay S, Tolley K, Colayco D, Khalaf K, Anderson P, Globe D: Mapping EQ-5D Utility Scores from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire among Patients with Neurogenic and Idiopathic Overactive Bladder. Value Health 2013, 16:394-402.
• [33]Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M: Multi-attribute preference functions. health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995, 7:503-520.
• [34]Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, Barkham M, Ibbotson R: Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess 2012, 16:1-114.
• [35]Wright B, Masters G: Rating Scale Analysis. Rasch Measurement. MESA Press, Chicago; 1982.
• [36]Young T, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K: The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:253-265.
• [37]Mulhern B, Smith SC, Rowen D, Brazier JE, Knapp M, Lamping DL, Loftus V, Young TA, Howard RJ, Banerjee S: Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis. Value Health 2012, 15:323-333.
• [38]Linacre JM: Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best? J Outcome Meas 1998, 2:266-283.
• [39]Cruz F, Herschorn S, Aliotta P, Brin M, Thompson C, Lam W, Daniell G, Heesakkers J, Haag-Molkenteller C: Efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with urinary incontinence due to neurogenic detrusor overactivity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011, 60:742-750.
• [40]Ginsberg D, Gousse A, Keppenne V, Sievert KD, Thompson C, Lam W, Brin MF, Jenkins B, Haag-Molkenteller C: Phase 3 efficacy and tolerability study of onabotulinumtoxinA for urinary incontinence from neurogenic detrusor overactivity. J Urol 2012, 187:2131-2139.
• [41]Torrance G: Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 1976, 10:128-136.
• [42]Montejo AL, Correas-Lauffer J, Maurino J, Villa G, Rebollo P, Diez T, Cordero L: Estimation of a multiattribute utility function for the Spanish version of the TooL questionnaire. Value Health 2011, 14:564-570.
• [43][https://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/code_of_conduct/] webcite The Market Research Society M: MRS Code of Conduct. 2010. .
• [44][http://www.ephmra.org/Professional-Standards] webcite European Pharmaceutical Market Research Association E: EphMRA Code of Conduct. 2014. .
• [45][http://www.aqr.org.uk/refsection/recruitment-bestpract.shtml] webcite The Association for Qualitative Research A: Qualitative research recruitment guidelines. 2002. .
• [46]Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, De Haes HJ: The `utility¿ of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. is it an alternative to the time trade-off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12:291-298.
• [47]Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991, 12:142S-158S.
• [48]Linacre J: Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program. Winsteps.com, Beaverton, Oregon; 2012.
• [49]Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station, Tx; 2007.
• [50]Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. Process and methods guides. NICE, London; 2013.
• [51]Young TA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A: The use of rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Making 2011, 31:195-210.
• [52]Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS: Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004, 7:602-609.
• [53]Mulhern B, Meadows K: The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and diabetes health profile-18 in type 2 diabetes.Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014, 12:42.
• [54]Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR: Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 2004, 7:490-498.
• [55]Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A: Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies.PLoS One 2012, 7:e31115.
• [56]van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WB: The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ 2009, 18:549-558.
• [57]Dolan P, Roberts J: To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:919-929.