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
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2016

01.08.2016 | Original Research Article

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

verfasst von: Julie A. Campbell, Andrew J. Palmer, Alison Venn, Melanie Sharman, Petr Otahal, Amanda Neil

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Psychosocial health status is an important and dynamic outcome for bariatric/metabolic surgery patients, as acknowledged in recent international standardised outcomes reporting guidelines. Multi-attribute utility-instruments (MAUIs) capture and assess an individual’s health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) within a single valuation, their utility. Neither MAUIs nor utilities were discussed in the guidelines. Many MAUIs (e.g. EQ-5D) target physical health. Not so the AQoL-8D.

Objectives

Our objective was to explore agreement between, and suitability of, the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D for assessing health state utility, and to determine whether either MAUI could be preferentially recommended for metabolic/bariatric surgery patients.

Methods

Utilities for post-surgical private-sector patients (n = 33) were assessed using both instruments and summary statistics expressed as mean [standard deviation (SD)] and median [interquartile range (IQR)]. Interchangeability of the MAUIs was assessed with Bland–Altman analysis. Discriminatory attributes were investigated through floor/ceiling effects and dimension-to-dimension comparisons. Spearman’s rank measured associations between the instruments’ utility values and with the body mass index (BMI).

Results

Mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L utility value was 0.84 (0.15) and median 0.84 (IQR 0.75–1.00). Mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility value was 0.76 (0.17) and median 0.81 (IQR 0.63–0.88). Spearman’s rank was r = 0.68; (p < 0.001); however, Bland–Altman analysis revealed fundamental differences. Neither instrument gave rise to floor effects. A ceiling effect was observed with the EQ-5D-5L, with 36 % of participants obtaining a utility value of 1.00 (perfect health). These same participants obtained a mean utility of 0.87 on the AQoL-8D, primarily driven by the mental-super-dimension score (0.52).

Conclusions

The AQoL-8D preferentially captures psychosocial aspects of metabolic/bariatric surgery patients’ HRQoL. We recommend the AQoL-8D as a preferred MAUI for these patients given their complex physical/psychosocial needs.
Literatur
1.
Gortmaker SL, Swinburn BA, Levy D, Carter R, Mabry PL, Finegood DT, et al. Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):838–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Formisano G, Buchwald H, Scopinaro N. Bariatric surgery worldwide 2013. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1822–32.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg. 2013;23(4):427–36.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lindekilde N, Gladstone BP, Lübeck M, Nielsen J, Clausen L, Vach W, et al. The impact of bariatric surgery on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2015;16(8):639–51.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Herpertz S, Müller A, Burgmer R, Crosby RD, de Zwaan M, Legenbauer T. Health-related quality of life and psychological functioning 9 years after restrictive surgical treatment for obesity. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(6):1361–70. doi:10.​1016/​j.​soard.​04.​008.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Burgmer R, Legenbauer T, Müller A, de Zwaan M, Fischer C, Herpertz S. Psychological outcome 4 years after restrictive bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2014;24(10):1670–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brethauer SA, Kim J, El Chaar M, Papasavas P, Eisenberg D, Rogers A, et al. Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Rel Dis. 2015;11(3):489–506.CrossRef
9.
Brethauer S, Kim J, el Chaar M, Papasavas P, Eisenberg D, Rogers A, et al. Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2015;25(4):587–606.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Khan MA, Richardson J, O’Brien P. The effect of obesity upon health related quality of life (HRQoL): a comparison of the AQoL-8D and SF-36 instruments. Farmeconomia Health Economics Therapeutic Pathways. 2012;13(2):69–82.CrossRef
11.
Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
12.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Maxwell A. Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient. 2014;7(1):85–96.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Skinner EH, Denehy L, Warrillow S, Hawthorne G. Comparison of the measurement properties of the AQoL and SF-6D in critical illness. Critic Care Resusc. 2013;15(3):205.
14.
Clarke PM, Hayes AJ, Glasziou PG, Scott R, Simes J, Keech AC. Using the EQ-5D index score as a predictor of outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care. 2009;47(1):61–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1–9.CrossRef
16.
17.
Chen G, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Ratcliffe J, Richardson J. Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015. doi:10.​1177/​0272989x15578127​ (Epub 3 Apr 2015).
18.
19.
Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. Melbourne: Monash University, Business and Economics, Centre for Health Economics; 2011.
20.
Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18(1):52–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Lin F-J, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(4):853–74.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Richardson. J. Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for the evaluation of interventions affecting mental health. Melbourne: Monash University, Centre for Health Economics; 2011.
25.
Holland R, Smith RD, Harvey I, Swift L, Lenaghan E. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Econ. 2004;13(8):793–805.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, Khan M. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2395–404.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Richardson J, Atherton Day N, Peacock S, Iezzi A. Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 instrument. Aust. Econ Rev. 2004;37(1):62–88.
29.
Jia Y, Cui F, Li L, Zhang D, Zhang G, Wang F, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–63.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Janssen M, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Turner N, Campbell J, Peters TJ, Wiles N, Hollinghurst S. A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Culyer AJ. Encyclopaedia of Health Economics. 1st ed. : vol. 2. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2014. p. 353.
33.
Stevens KJ. How well do the generic multi-attribute utility iIncorporate patient and public views into their descriptive systems? Patient. 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-015-0119-y (Epub 8 Feb 2015).
34.
van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(7):1571–82.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22(1):85–93.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43(7):736–49.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, et al. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):853–64. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-010-9639-z.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Ribaric G, Buchwald JN, d’Orsay G, Daoud F. 3-year real-world outcomes with the Swedish adjustable gastric band in France. Obes Surg. 2013;23(2):184–96.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Ackroyd R, Mouiel J, Chevallier JM, Daoud F. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of obesity surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes in three European countries. Obes Surg. 2006;16(11):1488–503.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Lin VW, Wong ES, Wright A, Flum DR, Garrison LP Jr, Alfonso-Cristancho R, et al. Association between health-related quality of life and body mass after adjustable gastric banding: a nonlinear approach. Value Health. 2013;16(5):823–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Pan C-W, Sun H-P, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(7):1767–74.CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1707–16.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Tayyem R, Ali A, Atkinson J, Martin CR. Analysis of health-related quality-of-life instruments measuring the impact of bariatric surgery: systematic review of the instruments used and their content validity. Patient. 2011;4(2):73–87.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Tayyem R, Atkinson J, Martin C. Development and validation of a new bariatric-specific health-related quality of life instrument “bariatric and obesity-specific survey (BOSS)”. J Postgrad Med. 2014;60(4):357–61.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Mihalopoulos C, Chen G, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Richardson J. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(5):390–7.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, Cesana G, Mantovani LG. Health related quality of life norm data of the Italian general population: results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2015;12(3):e11457-1-15.
50.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
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
verfasst von
Julie A. Campbell
Andrew J. Palmer
Alison Venn
Melanie Sharman
Petr Otahal
Amanda Neil
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0157-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Research Article

Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors

Original Research Article

Perceived Barriers and Potential Strategies to Improve Self-Management Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Community-Engaged Research Approach

Original Research Article

Understanding the Experience of Age-Related Vestibular Loss in Older Individuals: A Qualitative Study

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Patients’ Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration

Original Research Article

A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care

Original Research Article

Psychometric Evaluation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Symptom Diary for Varicose Veins: VVSymQ® Instrument