nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

25.06.2016

Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data

verfasst von: Aimee Maxwell, Mehmet Özmen, Angelo Iezzi, Jeff Richardson

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 12/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

(i) to demonstrate a method which ameliorates the problem of self-selection in the estimation of population norms from web-based data and (ii) to use the method to calculate population norms for two multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments, the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, and population norms for the sub-scales from which they are constructed.

Methods

A web-based survey administered the AQoL-8D MAU instrument (which subsumes the AQoL-6D questionnaire), to members of the public along with the AQoL-4D which has extant population norms. Age, gender and the AQoL-4D were used as post-stratification auxiliary variables to construct weights to ameliorate the potential effects of self-selection associated with web-based surveys. The weights were used to estimate unbiased population norms. Standard errors from the weighted samples were calculated using Jackknife estimation.

Results

For both AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, physical health dimensions decline significantly with age. In contrast, for the majority of the psycho-social dimensions there is a significant U-shaped profile. The net effect is a shallow U-shaped relationship between age and both the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D utilities. This contrasts with the almost monotonic decline in the utilities derived from the AQoL-4D and SF-6D MAU instruments.

Conclusions

Post-stratification weights were used to ameliorate potential bias in the derivation of norms from web-based data for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D. The methods may be used generally to obtain norms when suitable auxiliary variables are available. The inclusion of an enlarged psycho-social component in the two instruments significantly alters the demographic profile.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. New York: Springer.

Bowling, A. (2005). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier Science.CrossRef

EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef

Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. (1995). A social tariff for EuroQoL: Results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper No 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health utilities index mark II. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMed

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1989). A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). Journal of Social Medicine, 26, 85–96.

13.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kaplan, R., Bush, J., & Berry, C. (1976). Health status: Types of validity and the index of wellbeing. Health Services Research, 11(4), 478–507.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Misajon, R., Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Barton, J., Peacock, S., Iezzi, A., & Keeffe, J. (2005). Vision and quality of life: The development of a utility measure. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 46(11), 4007–4015.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Peacock, S., Sinha, K., Misajon, R., & Keeffe, J. (2012). Utility weights for the vision related Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 7D instrument. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 19(3), 172–182.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., Herrman, H. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for evaluation of interventions affecting mental health. Research Paper 61. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

18.

Richardson, J., Sinah, K., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2395–2404.

19.

Chen, G., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Richardson, J. (2016). Mapping between 6 multi attribute utility instruments. Medical Decsion Making, 36(2), 160–175.CrossRef

20.

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A. (2015). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of six utility instruments in seven disease states. Medical Decision Making, Accepted 22 Sep 2015.

21.

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments’. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304. doi:10.1177/0272989X14567354

23.

Campbell, J. A., Palmer, A. J., Venn, A., Sharman, M., Otahal, P., Neil, A. (2016). A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. The Patient—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016 1–12. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0157-5

24.

Hawthorne, G., Osborne, R., Sansoni, J., & Taylor, A. (2007). The SF-36 version 2: critical analysis of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 661–673.CrossRefPubMed

25.

ABS. (1995). Austalian Bureau of Statistics, National Health Survey SF-36 Population Norms Australia ABS Catalogue No. 4399. Canberra: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4399.01995?OpenDocument. Accessed 19 Apr 2012.

26.

Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Brown, M. A., Adnrews, G., & Whitefor, H. (2009). National survey of mental health and wellbeing: Methods and key findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(7), 594–605.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hawthorne, G., Herrman, H., & Murphy, B. (2006). Interpreting the WHOQoL-Brèf: Preliminary population norms and effect size. Social Indicators Research, 77, 37–59.CrossRef

28.

Cummins, R. A., Knapp, T. M., Woerner, J., Walter, J., Page, K. (2005). The personal Wellbeing of Australians living within federal electoral divisions. Report No: 13.1. Melbourne: Deakin University.

29.

Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2013). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23.CrossRef

31.

Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 136–142.CrossRefPubMed

32.

ABS. (2013). Australian demographic statistics, population by age and sex, Cat 3201.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3201.0Jun%202010?OpenDocument. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.

33.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G. (2014). Interim population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 87. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

34.

Meade, A. W., & Craig, B. S. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Gatz, D. F., & Smith, L. (1995). The standard error of a weighted mean concentration-I: Bootstrapping vs other methods. Atmospheric Environment, 29(11), 1185–1193.CrossRef

36.

AQoL. (2016) Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). http://www.aqol.com.au.

37.

Hawthorne, G. (2009). Assessing utility where short measures are required: Development of the short assessment of quality of life-8 (AQoL-8) instrument. Value in Health, 12(6), 948–957.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Frijters, P., & Beatton, T. (2012). The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82, 525–542.CrossRef

39.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.PubMedCentral

40.

Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2016). A comparison of AQoL-4D, AQoL-6D, AQoL-7D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 93. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

Titel: Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data
verfasst von: Aimee Maxwell
Mehmet Özmen
Angelo Iezzi
Jeff Richardson
Publikationsdatum: 25.06.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1337-z

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2016

Interpretation of verbal descriptors for response options commonly used in verbal rating scales in patient-reported outcome instruments

The role of mindfulness in distress and quality of life for men with advanced prostate cancer

Applying generalizability theory methods to assess continuity and change on the Adolescent Quality of Life-Mental Health Scale (AQOL-MHS)

Longitudinal assessment of health related quality of life of HIV infected patients treated for tuberculosis and HIV in a high burden setting

QOL and sociodemographic factors among first-time parents in Japan: a multilevel analysis

Ten-year follow-up of health-related quality of life among ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis at baseline