A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.03). 05/2014; 18(34):1-188. DOI: 10.3310/hta18340
Source: PubMed


Generic preference-based measures of health like the EQ-5D and SF-6D(®) are increasingly being used in economic evaluation and outcome assessment. However, there are concerns as to whether or not these generic measures are appropriate for use in people with mental health problems.

Download full-text


Available from: Sarah Byford, Jul 22, 2014
  • Source
    • "Since then, the EQ-5D has been validated in a wide range of conditions. It may still not be appropriate, however, for all conditions, and recent reviews found that its performance in some specific disorders is poor [6] [7] [8]. There are two possible explanations for the failure of generic preference-based measures in some conditions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Generic preference-based measures were criticized for being inappropriate in some conditions. One solution is to include "bolt-on" dimensions describing additional specific health problems. This study aimed to develop bolt-on dimensions to the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and assess their impact on health state values. Bolt-on dimensions were developed for vision problems, hearing problems, and tiredness. Each bolt-on dimension had three severity levels to match the EQ-5D. Three "core" EQ-5D states across a range of severity were selected, and each level of a bolt-on item was added, resulting in nine states in each condition. Health states with and without the bolt-on dimensions were valued by 300 members of the UK general public using time trade-off in face-to-face interviews, and mean health state values were compared using t tests. Regression analysis examined the impact of the bolt-on variants and the level of the bolt-on items after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Bolt-on dimensions had an impact on health state values of the EQ-5D; however, the size, direction, and significance of the impact depend on the severity of the core EQ-5D state and of the bolt-on dimension. Regression analysis demonstrated that after controlling for possible differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the groups, there were no significant differences in health state values between the three bolt-on dimensions but confirmed that the impact depended on the severity of the EQ-5D health state and the levels of bolt-on dimensions. The impact of a bolt-on dimension on the EQ-5D depends on the core health state and the level of the bolt-on dimension. Further research in this area is encouraged. Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Value in Health 01/2015; 18(1):52-60. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.004 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Exclusions included people experiencing acute episodes of their mental health condition , those not well enough to take part, where there was a known recent forensic history, and those who could not speak English or give consent. Further details on recruitment procedures can be found in Brazier et al. (2014). Approval for the research procedures was given by the local Research Ethics Committee, ref 10/H1308/11 and local NHS Research Governance, ref ZM03. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measuring quality-adjusted-life years using generic preference-based quality of life measures is common practice when evaluating health interventions. However, there are concerns that measures in common use, such as the EQ-5D and SF-6D, focus overly on physical health and therefore may not be appropriate for measuring quality of life for people with mental health problems. The aim of this research was to identify the domains of quality of life that are important to people with mental health problems in order to assess the content validity of these generic measures. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 people, recruited from UK mental health services, with a broad range of mental health problems at varying levels of severity. This complemented a previous systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on the same topic. Seven domains important to quality of life for people with mental health problems were identified: well-being and ill-being; relationships and a sense of belonging; activity; self-perception; autonomy, hope and hopelessness; and physical health. These were consistent with the systematic review, with the addition of physical health as a domain, and revealed a differing emphasis on the positive and negative aspects of quality of life according to the severity of the mental health problems. We conclude that the content of existing generic preference-based measures of health do not cover this domain space well. Additionally, because people may experience substantial improvements in their quality of life without registering on the positive end of a quality of life scale, it is important that the full spectrum of negative through to positive aspects of each domain are included in any quality of life measure.
    Social Science & Medicine 08/2014; 120C:12-20. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.026 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interest in the measurement of health related quality of life and psychosocial functioning from the patient's perspective in diabetes mellitus has grown in recent years. The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric performance of and agreement between the generic EQ-5D and SF-6D and diabetes specific DHP-18 in Type 2 diabetes. This will support the future use of the measures by providing further evidence regarding their psychometric properties and the conceptual overlap between the instruments. The results will inform whether the measures can be used with confidence alongside each other to provide a more holistic profile of people with Type 2 diabetes. A large longitudinal dataset (n = 1,184) of people with Type 2 diabetes was used for the analysis. Convergent validity was tested by examining correlations between the measures. Known group validity was tested across a range of clinical and diabetes severity indicators using ANOVA and effect size statistics. Agreement was examined using Bland-Altman plots. Responsiveness was tested by examining floor and ceiling effects and standardised response means. Correlations between the measures indicates that there is overlap in the constructs assessed (with correlations between 0.1 and 0.7 reported), but there is some level of divergence between the generic and condition specific instruments. Known group validity was generally good but was not consistent across all indicators included (with effect sizes from 0 to 0.74 reported). The EQ-5D and SF-6D displayed a high level of agreement, but there was some disagreement between the generic measures and the DHP-18 dimensions across the severity range. Responsiveness was higher in those who self-reported change in health (SRMs between 0.06 and 0.25). The psychometric assessment of the relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D and DHP-18 shows that all have a level of validity for use in Type 2 diabetes. This suggests that the measures can be used alongside each other to provide a more holistic assessment of with the quality of life impacts of Type 2 diabetes.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 03/2014; 12(1):42. DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-12-42 · 2.12 Impact Factor
Show more