nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.03.2009

The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis

verfasst von: Tracey Young, Yaling Yang, John E. Brazier, Aki Tsuchiya, Karin Coyne

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 2/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To set out the methodological process for using Rasch analysis alongside classical psychometric methods in the development of a health-state classification that is amenable to valuation.

Methods

The overactive bladder questionnaire is used to illustrate a five step process for deriving a reduced health-state classification from an existing non-preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument. Step I uses factor analysis to establish instrument dimensions, step II excludes items that do not meet the initial validation process and step III uses criteria based on Rasch analysis and other psychometric testing to select the final items for the health-state classification. In step IV, item levels are examined and Rasch analysis is used to explore the possibility of reducing the number of item levels. Step V repeats steps I–IV on alternative data sets in order to validate the selection of items for the health-state classification.

Results

The techniques described enable the construction of a five-dimension health-state classification, the OAB-5D, amenable to valuation tasks that will allow the derivation of preference weights.

Conclusions

The health-related quality of life of patients with conditions like overactive bladder can be valued and quality adjustment weights estimated for calculation of quality-adjusted life years.

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

Brooks, R. (1996). EQ-5D, the current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.PubMedCrossRef

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.PubMedCrossRef

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(2), 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.PubMedCrossRef

Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., et al. (2005). 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. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.PubMedCrossRef

Brazier, J. E., Deverill, M., Harper, R., Booth, A., et al. (1999). A review of the use of Health Status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3(9), 1–147.

Coast, J. (1992). Reprocessing data to form QALYs. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 305(6845), 87–90.

Fryback, D. G., Dasbach, E. J., Klein, R., et al. (1993). The Bever Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalogue of health-state quality factors. Medical Decision Making, 13, 89–102. doi:10.1177/0272989X9301300202.PubMedCrossRef

Nichol, M. B., Sengupta, N., & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality adjusted life-years: Estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21, 105–112. doi:10.1177/02729890122062352.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Tsuchyia, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., Parkin, D., et al. (2002). Deriving preference-based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ-5D indices. Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper Series No. 02/01, Accessed from http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/87/47/DP0201.pdf.

11.

Brazier, J., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., et al. (2007). Review of methods for mapping between measures of health related quality of life onto generic preference-based measures: a road to nowhere? Paper Presented at the Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Brunel University, Uxbridge.

12.

Gray, A., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26, 18–29. doi:10.1177/0272989X05284108.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted 1980.

15.

Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2005). Estimation of a preference based index measure of health for the SF-12 and comparison to the SF-36. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d.CrossRef

16.

Yang, Y., Brazier, J., Tsuchyia, A., Coyne, K., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB_q). Value in Health, 12(1).

17.

Abrams, P., Cardozo, L., Fall, M., et al. (2002). The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Report from the Standardization Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 21, 167–178. doi:10.1002/nau.10052.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kobelt, G., Kirchberger, I., & Malone-Lee, J. (1999). Quality-of-life aspects of the overactive bladder and the effect of treatment with tolterodine. BJU International, 83(6), 583–590. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00004.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Coyne, K. S., Matza, L. S., & Thompson, C. L. (2005). The responsiveness of the overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q). Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 849–855. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0706-1.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Coyne, K., Revicki, D., Hunt, T., et al. (2002). Psychometric validation of an overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire: The OAB-q. Quality of Life Research, 11(6), 563–574. doi:10.1023/A:1016370925601.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Matza, L. S., Thompson, C. L., Krasnow, J., Brewster-Jordan, J., Zyczynski, T., & Coyne, K. S. (2005). Test-retest reliability of four questionnaires for patients with overactive bladder: The overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q), patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC), urgency questionnaire (UQ), and the primary OAB symptom questionnaire (POSQ). Neurourology and Urodynamics, 24(3), 215–225. doi:10.1002/nau.20110.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Siami, P., Seidman, L. S., & Lama, D. (2002). A multicentre, prospective, open-label study of tolterodine extended-release 4 mg for overactive bladder: The speed of onset of therapeutic assessment trial (STAT). Clinical Therapeutics, 24(4), 616–628. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(02)85137-2.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Min Lai, S., & Perera, S. (2003). Glycine antagonist in neuroprotection Americans investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(7), 950–963. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Gilworth, G., Chamberlain, M. A., Bhakta, B., Haskard, D., Silman, A., & Tennant, A. (2004). Development of the BD-HRQL: A quality of life measure specific to Behcet’s disease. The Journal of Rheumatology, 31(5), 931–937.PubMed

25.

Pesudovs, K., Garamendi, E., & Elliott, D. B. (2004). The quality of life impact of refractive correction (QIRC) questionnaire: Development and validation. Optometry and Vision Science, 81(10), 769–777. doi:10.1097/00006324-200410000-00009.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IHRQLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 15(11), 1203–1214. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00112-7.CrossRef

27.

White, L. J., & Velozo, C. A. (2002). The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(6), 822–831. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.32685.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J., & Prieto, L. (2004). Content-based interpretation aids for health-related quality of life measures in clinical practice. An example for the visual function index (VF-14). Quality of Life Research, 13(1), 35–44. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000015298.09085.b0.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

30.

Feeny, D. (2002). The utility approach to assessing population health. In C. Murray, J. Salomon, C. Mathers, & A. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics. measurement and applications (pp. 515–528). Geneva: World Health Organisation.

31.

Chatfield, C., & Collins, A. J. (1980). Introduction to multivariate analysis. Cambridge: Chapman and Hall; University Press.

32.

Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103–122.PubMed

33.

Kubinger, K. D. (2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model–some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5(4), 377–394. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0504_3.CrossRef

34.

Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

35.

Tennant, A., McKenna, S. P., & Hagell, P. (2004). Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value in Health, 7(Supplement 1), S22–S26. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s106.x.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., et al. (2002). Clinical significance consensus meeting group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.PubMedCrossRef

37.

38.

SPSS for Windows.Release. 14.0.1. 2005. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 2005.

Titel: The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis
verfasst von: Tracey Young
Yaling Yang
John E. Brazier
Aki Tsuchiya
Karin Coyne
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2009
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9428-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2009

Factors associated with short-term recovery of health status among emergency department patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Mediators, moderators, and modulators of causal effects in clinical trials––Dynamically Modified Outcomes (DYNAMO) in health-related quality of life

Work status, daily activities and quality of life among people with severe mental illness

Test–retest reliability of the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQ) for children, adolescents and adults

Meaning behind measurement: self-comparisons affect responses to health-related quality of life questionnaires

The relative contributions of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health, and social relationships to life satisfaction in the United States