A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Sandra Hollinghurst³  Nicola Wiles⁴  Tim J Peters²  John Campbell¹  Nicholas Turner⁴ 

[1] Primary Care Research Group, Peninsula Medical School, Smeall Building, St Luke’s Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK;School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, 69 St Michael’s Hill, Bristol BS2 8DZ, UK;Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK;Centre for Mental Health, Addiction and Suicide Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK

关键词: QALYs;    Health related utility;    SF-6D;    EQ-5D;    Depression;   

Others  :  823686
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-81

 received in 2012-10-24, accepted in 2013-05-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

A variety of instruments are used to measure health related quality of life. Few data exist on the performance and agreement of different instruments in a depressed population. The aim of this study was to investigate agreement between, and suitability of, the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D VAS), SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm for measuring health utility in depressed patients.

Methods

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman approaches were used to assess agreement. Instrument sensitivity was analysed by: (1) plotting utility scores for the instruments against one another; (2) correlating utility scores and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)); and (3) using Tukey’s procedure. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis assessed instrument responsiveness to change. Acceptability was assessed by comparing instrument completion rates.

Results

The overall ICC was 0.57. Bland and Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement for each pair wise comparison, except between the SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm. Plots of utility scores displayed ’ceiling effects’ in the EQ-5D-3L index and ’floor effects’ in the SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm. All instruments showed a negative monotonic relationship with BDI, but the EQ-5D-3L index and EQ-5D VAS could not differentiate between depression severity sub-groups. The SF-based instruments were better able to detect changes in health state over time. There was no difference in completion rates of the four instruments.

Conclusions

There was a lack of agreement between utility scores generated by the different instruments. According to the criteria of sensitivity, responsiveness and acceptability that we applied, the SF-6D and SF-12 may be more suitable for the measurement of health related utility in a depressed population than the EQ-5D-3L, which is the instrument currently recommended by NICE.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Turner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]NICE. Depression: The treatment and management of depression in adults (CG90). London: HMSO; 2009.
• [2]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes – third edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [3]Decision Support Unit NICE: The incorporation of health benefits in cost utility analysis using the EQ-5D. London: HMSO; 2010.
• [4]Decision Support Unit NICE: Alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. London: HMSO; 2011.
• [5]Roberts J, Dolan P: To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 2004, 13:733-737.
• [6]Raisch DW, Feeney P, Goff DC Jr, Narayan KM, O’Connor PJ, Zhang P, Hire DG, Sullivan MD: Baseline comparison of three health utility measures and the feeling thermometer among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2012, 11:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Heintz E, Wirehn AB, Peebo BB, Rosenqvist U, Levin LA: QALY weights for diabetic retinopathy – A comparison of health state valuations with HUI-3, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS and TTO. Value Health 2012, 15:475-484.
• [8]Bijl RV, Ravelli A: Current and residual functional disability associated with psychopathology: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Psychol Med 2000, 30:657-668.
• [9]Mathers CD, Loncar D: Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med 2006, 3:2011-2031.
• [10]Lamers LM, Bouwmans CAM, Van Straten A, Donker MCH, Hakkart L: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ 2006, 15:1229-1236.
• [11]Mann R, Gilbody S, Richards D: Putting the ‘Q’ in depression QALYs: a comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D health related quality of life measures. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009, 44:569-578.
• [12]Gerhards SAH, Huibers MJH, Theunissen KATM, de Graaf LE, Widdershoven GAM, Evers SMAA: The responsiveness of quality of life utilities to change in depression: a comparison of instruments (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and DFD). Value Health 2011, 14:732-739.
• [13]Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004, 42:851-859.
• [14]Thomas LJ, Abel A, Ridgway N, Peters T, Kessler D, Hollinghurst S, Turner K, Garland A, Jerrom B, Morrison J, Williams C, Campbell J, Kuyken W, Lewis G, Wiles N: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial protocol. Contemp Clin Trials 2012, 33:312-319.
• [15]Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33:337-343.
• [16]Dolan P: Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [17]Parkin D, Devlin N: Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006, 15:653-664.
• [18]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.
• [19]Beck A, Steer RA, Brown GK: Beck Depression Inventory – Second Edition. San Anotonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1996.
• [20]Lewis G, Pelosi AJ, Araya R, Dunn G: Measuring psychiatric disorder in the community: a standardized assessment for lay interviewers. Psychol Med 1992, 22:465-486.
• [21]Ware JE, Kolinski M, Keller SD: How to score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summaries: A User’s Manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, Boston, MA; 1995.
• [22]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327:307-310.
• [23]Longworth L, Bryan S: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003, 12:1061-1067.
• [24]Petrou S, Hockley C: An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005, 14:1169-1189.
• [25]Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999, 3:1-164.
• [26]Kramer CY: Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal number of replications. Biometrics 1956, 12:307-310.
• [27]Sahei H, Ageel MI: The Analysis of Variance: Fixed, Random and Mixed Models. Boston: Birkhauser; 2000.
• [28]Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN: Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and general health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:1369-1378.
• [29]Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:459-468.
• [30]DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operator characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1998, 44:837-845.
• [31]Gerrard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004, 3:91-102.
• [32]Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes DK, Muir KR: A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years. Health Econ 2008, 17:815-832.
• [33]Marascuilo LA: Large sample multiple comparisons. Psychol Bull 1966, 65:280-290.
• [34]Glass GV, Hopkins BK: Statistical methods in education and psychology – third edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1996.
• [35]Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004, 13:873-884.
• [36]Kopec JA, Willison KD: A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:317-325.
• [37]Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Nierenberg AA, Warden D, Ritz L, Norquist G, Howland RH, Lebowitz B, McGrath PJ, Shores-Wilson K, Biggs MM, Balasubramani GK, Fava M: Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurment-based care in STAR*D: Implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry 2006, 163:28-40.
• [38]Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1727-1736.