Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 6/2014

01.08.2014

Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: an analysis of response consistency

verfasst von: Nicole Au, Paula K. Lorgelly

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 6/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Self-rated health (SRH) is widely used to measure and compare the health status of different groups of individuals. However, SRH can suffer from heterogeneity in reporting styles, making health comparisons problematic. Anchoring vignettes is a promising technique for improving inter-group comparisons of SRH. A key identifying assumption of the approach is response consistency—that respondents rate themselves using the same underlying response scale that they rate the vignettes. Despite growing research into response consistency, it remains unclear how respondents rate vignettes and why respondents may not assess vignettes and themselves consistently.

Method

Vignettes for the EQ-5D-5L were developed and included in an online survey. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants following survey completion. Response consistency was examined through qualitative analysis of the interview responses and quantitative coding of participants’ thought processes.

Results

Our analysis showed that anchoring vignettes for the EQ-5D-5L is feasible, but that response consistency may not hold for some participants. Respondents are more likely to rate their own health and vignettes in the same way if presented with overall health state vignettes than single health dimension vignettes, and if they imagined themselves in the health state of the hypothetical individual.

Conclusion

This research highlights opportunities to improve the design of anchoring vignettes in order to enhance response consistency. It additionally provides new evidence on the feasibility of employing anchoring vignettes for the EQ-5D-5L, which is promising for future work to address reporting heterogeneity in the EQ-5D-5L.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
We focus on the issue of DIF in cross-population comparisons, but we note that it is also possible for DIF to occur within individuals, for example if patients change their point of reference over time when rating their own health [30].
 
2
A second key assumption is Vignette equivalence—that each vignette is perceived by all respondents as the same underlying level.
 
Literatur
1.
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Gold, M., Franks, P., & Erickson, P. (1996). Assessing the health of the nation: The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Medical Care, 34(2), 163–177.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Clarke, P. M., Hayes, A. J., Glasziou, P. G., Scott, R., Simes, J., & Keech, A. C. (2009). Using the EQ-5D index score as a predictor of outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Medical Care, 47(1), 61–68.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Rabin, R., & Charro, F. D. (2001). EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.PubMedCrossRef
5.
McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges 1. Annual Review of Public Health, 20(1), 309–335.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 322(7297), 1297.CrossRef
7.
8.
Devlin, N. J., Parkin, D., & Browne, J. (2010). Patient reported outcome measures in the NHS: New methods for analysing and reporting EQ 5D data. Health Economics, 19(8), 886–905.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
van Doorslaer, E., & Koolman, X. (2004). Explaining the differences in income-related health inequalities across European countries. Health Economics, 13(7), 609–628. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​918.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Euroqol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
12.
Murray, C. J. L., Tandon, A., Salomon, J. A., Mathers, C. D., & Sadana, R. (2002). Cross-population comparability of evidence for health policy. GPE Discussion Paper No. 46. Geneva: WHO/EIP.
13.
Kaplan, G., & Baron-Epel, O. (2003). What lies behind the subjective evaluation of health status? Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), 1669–1676.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Lindeboom, M., & Van Doorslaer, E. (2004). Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health. Journal of Health Economics, 23(6), 1083–1099.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Groot, W. (2000). Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life. Journal of health economics, 19(3), 403–420.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Baron-Epel, O., Kaplan, G., Haviv-Messika, A., Tarabeia, J., Green, M. S., & Nitzan Kaluski, D. (2005). Self-reported health as a cultural health determinant in Arab and Jewish Israelis: MABAT—National Health and Nutrition Survey 1999–2001. Social Science and Medicine, 61(6), 1256–1266.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Wiseman, V. L. (1999). Culture, self-rated health and resource allocation decision-making. Health Care Analysis, 7(3), 207–223.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kerkhofs, M., & Lindeboom, M. (1995). Subjective health measures and state dependent reporting errors. Health Economics, 4(3), 221–235.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sadana, R., Mathers, C. D., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J. L., & Iburg, K. (2000). Comparative analyses of more than 50 household surveys on health status. GPE Discussion Paper No. 15. Geneva: World Health Organization.
22.
Shmueli, A. (2003). Socio-economic and demographic variation in health and in its measures: The issue of reporting heterogeneity. Social Science and Medicine, 57(1), 125–134.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Humphries, K. H., & Van Doorslaer, E. (2000). Income-related health inequality in Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 50(5), 663–671.PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
27.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(01), 191–207.CrossRef
29.
Shmueli, A. (2002). Reporting heterogeneity in the measurement of health and health-related quality of life. Pharmacoeconomics, 20(6), 405–412.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Baker, M., Stabile, M., & Deri, C. (2004). What do self-reported, objective, measures of health measure? Journal of Human Resources, 39(4), 1067–1093.CrossRef
32.
Kapteyn, A., Smith, J. P., & Van Soest, A. (2007). Vignettes and self-reports of work disability in the United States and the Netherlands. The American Economic Review, 97(1), 461–473.CrossRef
33.
Kapteyn, A., Smith, J., & Van Soest, A. (2011). Are Americans really less happy with their incomes? RAND Working Paper Series WR-858.
34.
Grol-Prokopczyk, H., Freese, J., & Hauser, R. M. (2011). Using anchoring vignettes to assess group differences in general self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 246.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Bago D’Uva, T., Van Doorslaer, E., Lindeboom, M., & O’Donnell, O. (2008). Does reporting heterogeneity bias the measurement of health disparities? [Article]. Health Economics, 17(3), 351–375. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​1269.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Salomon, J. A., Tandon, A., & Murray, C. J. L. (2004). Comparability of self rated health: Cross sectional multi-country survey using anchoring vignettes. British Medical Journal, 328(7434), 258.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Bago d’Uva, T., Lindeboom, M., O’Donnell, O., & van Doorslaer, E. (2011). Slipping anchor? Testing the vignettes approach to identification and correction of reporting heterogeneity. Journal of Human Resources, 46(4), 875–906.CrossRef
39.
Van Soest, A., Delaney, L., Harmon, C., Kapteyn, A., & Smith, J. P. (2011). Validating the use of anchoring vignettes for the correction of response scale differences in subjective questions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 174(3), 575–595.PubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
König, H.-H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six European countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D Questionnaire. Medical Care, 47(2), 255–261. doi:10.​1097/​MLR.​0b013e318184759e​.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Lubetkin, E., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-005-8028-5.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 309–320.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
43.
Maheswaran, H., Petrou, S., Rees, K., & Stranges, S. (2012). Estimating EQ-5D utility values for major health behavioural risk factors in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67(2), 172–180. doi:10.​1136/​jech-2012-201019.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Søltoft, F., Hammer, M., & Kragh, N. (2009). The association of body mass index and health-related quality of life in the general population: Data from the 2003 Health Survey of England. Quality of Life Research, 18(10), 1293–1299.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
47.
Marmot, M., Banks, J., Blundell, R., Lessof, C., & Nazroo, J. (2003). Health, wealth and lifestyles of the older population in England: ELSA 2002. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
48.
Börsch-Supan, A., Hank, K., & Jürges, H. (2005). A new comprehensive and international view on ageing: Introducing the ‘Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe’. European Journal of Ageing, 2(4), 245–253.CrossRef
49.
50.
Metadaten
Titel
Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: an analysis of response consistency
verfasst von
Nicole Au
Paula K. Lorgelly
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2014
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0615-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2014

Quality of Life Research 6/2014 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

The impact of concurrent granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor on quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9901 trial

OriginalPaper

Positive and negative aspects of well-being as correlates of breast reconstruction decision

OriginalPaper

Impact of autism in adolescents on parental quality of life

OriginalPaper

Assessing spiritual well-being in residents of nursing homes for older people using the FACIT-Sp-12: a cognitive interviewing study

Brief Communication

The Italian version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability and validity

OriginalPaper

Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations