Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.
ABSTRACT The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions.
To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets.
The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29-1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a -0.59-1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating 'full health'. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments.
From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the 'small to moderate' range using Cohen's criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range -0.011-0.140) and the SRMs ranged from -0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-SD was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D.
There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.
SourceAvailable from: Floor Willeboordse[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Inappropriate drug use has been identified as one of the most important problems affecting the quality of care in older people. Inappropriate drug use may increase the risk of the occurrence of 'geriatric giants' such as immobility, instability, incontinence and cognitive impairment. There are indications that clinical medication reviews (CMR) can reduce inappropriate drug use. However, CMRs have not yet been implemented at a large scale in primary care. An innovative medication review program in primary care will be developed which tackles the most important obstacles for a large scale implementation of CMRs. The aim of this study is to assess whether this CMR program is (cost-) effective compared with usual general practice care for older patients with geriatric symptoms with regard to quality of life and geriatric symptoms. A cluster randomised controlled trial will be performed in 20 Dutch general practices including 500 patients. Patients of 65 years and older are eligible if they newly present with pre-specified geriatric symptoms in general practice and chronic use of at least one prescribed drug. GP practices will be stratified by practice size and randomly allocated to control (n = 10) or intervention group (n = 10). The intervention consists of CMRs which will be facilitated and prepared by an expert team consisting of a GP and a pharmacist. Primary outcome measures are patient's quality of life and the presence of self-reported geriatric symptoms during a follow-up period of 6 months. Secondary outcomes are costs of healthcare utilisation, feasibility, number of drug related problems, medication adherence and satisfaction with medication. This study is expected to add evidence on the (cost-) effectiveness of an optimally facilitated, prepared and structured CMR in comparison with usual care in older patients who present a geriatric symptom to their GP. The strength of this study is that it will be conducted in daily clinical practice. This improves the possibilities to implement the CMRs in the primary care setting on a large scale. Netherlands Trial register: NTR4264.BMC Geriatrics 01/2014; 14(1):116. DOI:10.1186/1471-2318-14-116 · 2.00 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background There is conflicting evidence as to whether patients with chronic disease value hypothetical health states differently from individuals who have not experienced any long-lasting diseases. Furthermore, most studies regarding this issue have been conducted in western countries, with only one conducted in Asia. We aimed to evaluate possible systematic differences in the valuation of EuroQol Group five dimensions 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) health states by chronic disease patients and a population with no chronic disease in Singapore.MethodsA face-to-face survey for the valuation of the 42 health states of the EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale (VAS) method was conducted in Singapore. The survey also asked participants to report any chronic diseases they had. Ordinary least-square regression models were employed to assess possible differences in the valuation scores of all health states, severe health states and non-severe health states by individual chronic disease patient groups (diabetes, rheumatism, hypertension, heart diseases and lung diseases) and by a group of participants with no chronic disease. A difference of 4 to 8 points on the 100-point VAS was considered to be of practical significance.ResultsThe analysis included 332 participants with at least one chronic disease and 651 participants with no chronic disease. After taking health state descriptors and covariates into account, mean valuation scores of the 42 health states by the heart disease group were higher by 4.6 points (p-value¿=¿0.032) compared to the no chronic disease group. Specifically, the heart disease group valued severe health states 5.4 points higher (p-value¿=¿0.025) than the no chronic disease group. There was no practically significant difference in the mean valuation score of non-severe health states between the heart disease group and the no chronic disease group. No practically significant differences were found in the mean valuation score of all health states, severe health states and non-severe health states between any other chronic disease group and the no chronic disease group.Conclusions In Singapore, heart disease patients valued EQ-5D-3L severe health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease. Other chronic disease groups did not value EQ-5D-3L health states differently from the no chronic disease group.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 01/2015; 13(1):8. DOI:10.1186/s12955-014-0200-6 · 2.10 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To study functional status (FS) and quality of life (QoL) after discharge from intensive care unit (ICU) in patients who had > 24 hours of mechanical ventilation (MV) and to compare them with reference Argentine population. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: ICU at Sanatorio Anchorena, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Patients: All patients admitted to the ICU between September 2008 and April 2009 with more than 24 hours of MV. Procedures: QoL was assessed by EQ-5D and FS was evaluated through Barthel index [evaluation of daily life activities (DLA)] by telephone at 4 months and 1 year after discharge from ICU. Results: 77 patients required MV, 41 females (53%), median age 65 years (IQR 55-77), SAPSII 41 (28-52), days of MV 4 (2-8). 47 patients survived after hospitalization, 40 (85.1%) at 4 months and 34 (72.3%) one year later. The EQ-5D at 4 months (median 0.693 IQR0.182-0.982) and at 1 year (median 0.841 IQR0.493-1) of follow up were significantly lower compared with general Argentine population (p = 0.0004 and 0.024 respectively). At 4 months, half of the patients had problems in all dimensions of the Euroqol and 57% were dependent on DLA. At 1 year, 54% could not return to their previous activities, suffered from anxiety/depression and 45% were dependent on DLA. Conclusions: Effects of critical illness and ICU stay are present at 4 months and 1 year after discharge. Survivors suffer a lower quality of life and functional status than general population.