nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

02.07.2020 | Review

Measurement properties of preference-based measures for economic evaluation in COPD: a systematic review

verfasst von: Ava Mehdipour, Marla K. Beauchamp, Joshua Wald, Nicole Peters, Ayse Kuspinar

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 11/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Preference-based measures can provide measurements of health-related quality of life and be utilized for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether generic preference-based measures are reliable, valid, and responsive in COPD.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the sample represented individuals with COPD and the aim was to evaluate one or more psychometric properties or the interpretability of generic preference-based measures.

Results

Six hundred and sixty-seven abstracts were screened, 65 full-text articles were reviewed and 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. Measures which emerged from the search were the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, the Quality of Well-being scale, the 15D, and the Health Utilities Index 3. Evidence for the test–retest reliability of these measures was limited. Construct validity of the measures was well supported with correlations with generic health profiles being 0.37–0.68, and correlations with COPD-specific health profiles being 0.53–0.75. Evidence for known-groups validity of these measures was poor and data on responsiveness were mixed.

Conclusion

Generic preference-based measures’ sensitivity to change and ability to discriminate between different disease severities in COPD was poorly supported. Future research may consider examining the development of COPD-specific preference-based measures that may allow for a more accurate detection of change and discrimination among disease severities to facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD. (2019).

Miravitlles, M., & Ribera, A. (2017). Understanding the impact of symptoms on the burden of COPD. Respiratory Research, 18(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-017-0548-3.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Perng, D. W., Tao, C. W., Su, K. C., Tsai, C. C., Liu, L. Y., & Lee, Y. C. (2009). Anti-inflammatory effects of salmeterol/fluticasone, tiotropium/fluticasone or tiotropium in COPD. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/0903193600115308.CrossRef

Boueri, F. M. V., Bucher-Bartelson, B. L., Glenn, K. A., & Make, B. J. M. (2001). Quality of life measured with a generic instrument (Short Form-36) improves following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Chest. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.119.1.77.CrossRef

Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587.CrossRef

Brazier, J., Ara, R., Rowen, D., & Chevrou-Severac, H. (2017). A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033.CrossRef

Gutacker, N., Bojke, C., Daidone, S., Devlin, N., & Street, A. (2013). Hospital variation in patient-reported outcomes at the level of EQ-5D dimensions: Evidence from England. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13482523.CrossRef

Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, D., Wang, D., Li, Y., et al. (2017). Assessing income-related health inequality and horizontal inequity in China. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1221-1.CrossRef

10.

Bolarinwa, O. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.4103/1117-1936.173959.CrossRefPubMedCentral

11.

De Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

12.

Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.CrossRefPubMedCentral

13.

Vilagut, G. (2014). Test-retest reliability BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6622–6625). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

14.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Chin, C.-L., & Yao, G. (2014). Convergent validity BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1275–1276). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

16.

Davidson, M. (2014). Known-groups validity BT. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 3481–3482). Netherlands Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

17.

Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.CrossRefPubMedCentral

18.

Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., De Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient—Reported Outcome Measures ( PROMs ). User Manual, (February), 1–78.

19.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Deeks, J. J. (2011). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).

21.

Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., & Oxman, A. (2013). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group.

22.

Thuppal, S., Markwell, S., Crabtree, T., & Hazelrigg, S. (2019). Comparison between the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D quality of life (QOL) questionnaires in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Quality of Life Research, 28(7), 1885–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02123-x.CrossRef

23.

Nolan, C. M., Longworth, L., Lord, J., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Kon, S. S. C., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax, 71(6), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782.CrossRefPubMedCentral

24.

Wacker, M. E., Jörres, R. A., Karch, A., Wilke, S., Heinrich, J., Karrasch, S., et al. (2016). Assessing health-related quality of life in COPD: Comparing generic and disease-specific instruments with focus on comorbidities. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-016-0238-9.CrossRef

25.

Chen, J., Wong, C. K., McGhee, S. M., Pang, P. K., & Yu, W. C. (2014). A comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112389.CrossRefPubMedCentral

26.

Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., & Pereira, L. N. (2014). Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 27(2), 236.CrossRef

27.

Kim, S. H., Oh, Y. M., & Jo, M. W. (2014). Health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Korea. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-57.CrossRef

28.

Lin, F. J., Pickard, A. S., Krishnan, J. A., Joo, M. J., Au, D. H., & Carson, S. S. (2014). Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-78.CrossRefPubMedCentral

29.

Manca, S., Rodriguez, E., Huerta, A., Torres, M., Lazaro, L., Curi, S., et al. (2014). Usefulness of the CAT, LCOPD, EQ-5D and COPDSS scales in understanding the impact of lung disease in patients with Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 11(5), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.3109/15412555.2014.898030.CrossRef

30.

Peters, M., Crocker, H., Dummett, S., Jenkinson, C., Doll, H., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2014). Change in health status in long-term conditions over a one year period: A cohort survey using patient-reported outcome measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–10.CrossRef

31.

Goossens, L. M. A., Nivens, M. C., Sachs, P., Monz, B. U., & Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H. (2011). Is the EQ-5D responsive to recovery from a moderate COPD exacerbation? Respiratory Medicine, 105(8), 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2011.02.018.CrossRef

32.

Pickard, A. S., Yang, Y., & Lee, T. A. (2011). Comparison of health-related quality of life measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-26.CrossRefPubMedCentral

33.

Menn, P., Weber, N., & Holle, R. (2010). Health-related quality of life in patients with severe COPD hospitalized for exacerbations—comparing EQ-5D, SF-12 and SGRQ. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-39.CrossRef

34.

Polley, L., Yaman, N., Heaney, L., Cardwell, C., Murtagh, E., Ramsey, J., et al. (2008). Impact of cough across different chronic respiratory diseases: Comparison of two cough-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires. Chest, 134(2), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.07-0141.CrossRefPubMedCentral

35.

Ringbaek, T., Brøndum, E., Martinez, G., & Lange, P. (2008). EuroQoL in assessment of the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation COPD patients. Respiratory Medicine, 102(11), 1563–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2008.06.016.CrossRefPubMedCentral

36.

Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H., Oostenbrink, J. B., Tashkin, D. P., Burkhart, D., & Monz, B. U. (2006). Does quality of life of COPD patients as measured by the generic EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire differentiate between COPD severity stages? Chest, 130(4), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.130.4.1117.CrossRefPubMedCentral

37.

Stavem, K. (1999). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Quality of Life Research, 8(1–2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026475531996.CrossRefPubMedCentral

38.

Harper, R., Brazier, J. E., Waterhouse, J. C., Walters, S. J., Jones, N. M. B., & Howard, P. (1997). Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax, 52(10), 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.52.10.879.CrossRefPubMedCentral

39.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(4), 1–8.

40.

Kaplan, R. M. (2005). The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1081/COPD-200052090.CrossRef

41.

Anderson, J. P., Kaplan, R. M., Berry, C. C., Bush, J. W., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1989). Interday reliability of function assessment for a health status measure: The quality of well-being scale. Medical Care, 27(11), 1076–1084.CrossRef

42.

Kaplan, R. M., Atkins, C. J., & Timms, R. (1984). Validity of a quality of well-being scale as an outcome measure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 37(2), 85–95.CrossRef

43.

Koskela, J., Kupiainen, H., Kilpeläinen, M., Lindqvist, A., Sintonen, H., Pitkäniemi, J., et al. (2014). Longitudinal HRQoL shows divergent trends and identifies constant decliners in asthma and COPD. Respiratory Medicine, 108(3), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.12.001.CrossRef

44.

Mazur, W., Kupiainen, H., Pitkäniemi, J., Kilpeläinen, M., Sintonen, H., & Lindqvist, A. (2011). Comparison between the disease-specific airways questionnaire 20 and the generic 15D instruments in COPD. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-4.CrossRefPubMedCentral

45.

Puhan, M. A., Guyatt, G. H., Goldstein, R., Mador, J., McKim, D., Stahl, E., et al. (2007). Relative responsiveness of the chronic respiratory questionnaire, St. Georges respiratory questionnaire and four other health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic lung disease. Respiratory Medicine, 101(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.04.023.CrossRef

46.

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

47.

Chauvin, A., Rupley, L., Meyers, K., Johnson, K., & Eason, J. (2008). Outcomes in cardiopulmonary physical therapy: Chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, 19(2), 61–67.CrossRefPubMedCentral

48.

Petrillo, J., Van Nooten, F., Jones, P., & Rutten-Van Mölken, M. (2011). Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A preference for change? PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.2165/11589280-000000000-00000.CrossRef

49.

Simon Pickard, A., Wilke, C., Jung, E., Patel, S., Stavem, K., & Lee, T. A. (2008). Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.CrossRef

50.

Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2018). What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x.CrossRef

51.

Qian, X., Tan, R. L. Y., Chuang, L. H., & Luo, N. (2020). Measurement properties of commonly used generic preference-based measures in East and South-East Asia: A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00854-w.CrossRef

52.

Fayers, P. M., Hays, R., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: Methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.CrossRef

54.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Titel: Measurement properties of preference-based measures for economic evaluation in COPD: a systematic review
verfasst von: Ava Mehdipour
Marla K. Beauchamp
Joshua Wald
Nicole Peters
Ayse Kuspinar
Publikationsdatum: 02.07.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02569-4

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2020

How the EQ-5D utilities are derived matters in Chinese diabetes patients: a comparison based on different EQ-5D scoring functions for China

Activities of daily living, life orientation, and health-related quality of life among older people in nursing homes: a national cross-sectional study in China

Known-groups validity and responsiveness to change of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS vs. 2.0): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden

Effects of spiritual resilience on psychological distress and health-related quality of life in Chinese people with Parkinson’s disease

Health-related quality of life of women after HPV testing as triage strategy for an abnormal Pap smear: a nested randomized pragmatic trial in a middle-income country

Differences in physical and psychological health in patients with chronic low back pain: a national survey in general Spanish population