nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.03.2012 | Short Communication

Test-Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response Version of the EQ-5D in a Sample of Cancer Survivors

verfasst von: Dr J. Jason Lundy, Stephen Joel Coons

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background: Electronic data capture technologies, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems, are emerging as important alternatives for collecting patient-reported outcome data.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of an IVR version of the EQ-5D.

Methods: Outpatient cancer clinic patients (n= 127) were asked to complete the IVR-based EQ-5D twice, 2 days apart. The analyses tested for mean differences (paired t-test) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) to assess measurement stability over time. Equivalence of the means was established if the 95% confidence interval (CI) was within the minimally important difference (MID) interval; namely −0.035 to 0.035 for the EQ-5D index and −3.0 to 3.0 for the visual analog scale (i.e. EQ VAS). Adequacy of the ICC was established by testing whether it differed from a value of 0.70.

Results: Both administrations were completed per protocol by 114 subjects (EQ-5D index) and 110 subjects (EQ VAS). For the EQ-5D index, the means (SD) of the first and second administrations were 0.871 (0.14) and 0.871 (0.15), respectively. The 95% CI of the mean difference was −0.013, 0.013, within the equivalence interval. The ICC was 0.876 (95% lower bound of 0.826) and was significantly different from 0.70. The EQ VAS means (SD) were 81.3 (17.5) and 80.8 (17.5), respectively. The 95% CI of the mean difference was −0.598, 1.617, within the equivalence interval. The EQ VAS ICC was 0.944 (95% lower bound of 0.919) and was significantly greater than 0.70.

Conclusion: This analysis provides substantial evidence that the scores obtained from the IVR version of the EQ-5D are reliable upon repeated administrations.

Konopka A. The power of ePRO. PharmaVOICE 2005 Nov; 40-4

Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2009; 12(4): 419–29PubMedCrossRef

Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008; 11: 322–33PubMedCrossRef

Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337–43PubMedCrossRef

Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203–20PubMedCrossRef

Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value Health 2011; 14(6): 867–71PubMedCrossRef

Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 93–113PubMedCrossRef

Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32PubMedCrossRef

Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007; 5: 70PubMedCrossRef

10.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994

11.

Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003

12.

SPSS Inc. SPSS [computer program]. Version 16.0. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc., 2007

13.

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–8PubMedCrossRef

14.

McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients [published erratum appears in Psychol Methods 1996; 1 (4): 390]. Psychol Methods 1996; 1(1): 1, 30–46CrossRef

15.

Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999; 38: 807–13PubMedCrossRef

16.

Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, et al. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax 1997; 52: 879–87PubMedCrossRef

17.

Macran S. Test-retest performance of EQ-5D. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003: 43–54CrossRef

18.

Luo N, Chew L-H, Fong K-Y, et al. Do English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 7 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/7 [Accessed 2010 Sep 13]PubMedCrossRef

19.

Gao F, Ng GY, Cheung YB, et al. The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clinical Epidemiol 2009; 62: 206–13CrossRef

Titel: Test-Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response Version of the EQ-5D in a Sample of Cancer Survivors
verfasst von: Dr J. Jason Lundy
Stephen Joel Coons
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2012
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11595840-000000000-00000

Springer Medizin

Abstract

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke Rehabilitation

Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions

Re-Engineering the Post-Discharge Appointment Process for General Medicine Patients

Burden of a Multiple Sclerosis Relapse

Patient Preferences for First-Line Oral Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis