TY - JOUR
T1 - A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation
AU - Mcdonough, Christine M.
AU - Tosteson, Tor D.
AU - Tosteson, Anna N.A.
AU - Jette, Alan M.
AU - Grove, Margaret R.
AU - Weinstein, James Neil
N1 - Funding Information:
Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01-AR45444-01A1 and P60-AR048094-01A1) and the Office of Research on Women’s Health, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and a New Investigator Fellowship Training Initiative grant from the Foundation for Physical Therapy.
Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the following sources: grant number F32HD056763 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
PY - 2011/3
Y1 - 2011/3
N2 - Objective. To assess the longitudinal validity of widely used preference-weighted measurement systems for economic studies of intervertebral disk herniation (IDH). Methods. Using data at baseline and 1 year from 1000 Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants with IDH and complete data, the authors considered the EQ-5D with UK and US values (EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US), 2 versions of the Health Utilities Index (HUI3 and HUI2), the SF-6D, and a regression-estimated quality of well-being score (eQWB). Differences in mean change scores (MCS) were assessed using signed rank tests, and Spearman correlations were calculated for change scores by system pairs. Using the Oswestry Disability Index, symptom satisfaction, progress rating, and self-perceived health ratings as criterion measures, the authors tested for trend in MCS across levels of change in criteria. They calculated floor and ceiling effects, effect size (ES), standardized response mean, and minimal important difference estimates. Results. All systems demonstrated linear trends with external criteria and moderate to strong correlations between systems. However, differences in performance were evident. SF-6D and eQWB were most responsive (ES: 1.9 and 2.3, respectively), whereas EQ-5D-US and EQ-5D-UK were least responsive (ES: 1.23/1.20). Ceiling and floor effects were noted for all systems within key dimensions and for EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US for overall score. MCS ranged from 0.40 (0.38) for EQ-5D-UK to 0.13 (0.09) for eQWB and differed significantly, except between EQ-5D-US and HUI2. Conclusions. This research supports the validity of all systems for measuring change in persons with IDH, without finding a clearly superior system. The unique characteristics of each system revealed in this study should guide system choice.
AB - Objective. To assess the longitudinal validity of widely used preference-weighted measurement systems for economic studies of intervertebral disk herniation (IDH). Methods. Using data at baseline and 1 year from 1000 Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants with IDH and complete data, the authors considered the EQ-5D with UK and US values (EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US), 2 versions of the Health Utilities Index (HUI3 and HUI2), the SF-6D, and a regression-estimated quality of well-being score (eQWB). Differences in mean change scores (MCS) were assessed using signed rank tests, and Spearman correlations were calculated for change scores by system pairs. Using the Oswestry Disability Index, symptom satisfaction, progress rating, and self-perceived health ratings as criterion measures, the authors tested for trend in MCS across levels of change in criteria. They calculated floor and ceiling effects, effect size (ES), standardized response mean, and minimal important difference estimates. Results. All systems demonstrated linear trends with external criteria and moderate to strong correlations between systems. However, differences in performance were evident. SF-6D and eQWB were most responsive (ES: 1.9 and 2.3, respectively), whereas EQ-5D-US and EQ-5D-UK were least responsive (ES: 1.23/1.20). Ceiling and floor effects were noted for all systems within key dimensions and for EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US for overall score. MCS ranged from 0.40 (0.38) for EQ-5D-UK to 0.13 (0.09) for eQWB and differed significantly, except between EQ-5D-US and HUI2. Conclusions. This research supports the validity of all systems for measuring change in persons with IDH, without finding a clearly superior system. The unique characteristics of each system revealed in this study should guide system choice.
KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis
KW - Cost-utility analysis
KW - Economic evaluation
KW - Health state preferences
KW - Health status indicators
KW - Quality of life
KW - SPORT
KW - Scale validation
KW - Spine diseases
KW - Utilities and valuation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953897095&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953897095&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0272989X10380924
DO - 10.1177/0272989X10380924
M3 - Article
C2 - 21098419
AN - SCOPUS:79953897095
SN - 0272-989X
VL - 31
SP - 270
EP - 280
JO - Medical Decision Making
JF - Medical Decision Making
IS - 2
ER -
