Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30

被引:55
作者
Krabbe, PFM
Peerenboom, L
Langenhoff, BS
Ruers, TJM
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen, Dept Med Technol Assessment 253, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen, Dept Surg, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
cancer; effect sizes; EORTC QLQ C-30; EQ-5D; health status; HRQoL; responsiveness; utility;
D O I
10.1023/B:QURE.0000037498.00754.b8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: We investigated whether the sensitivity of the generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) EQ-5D summary measure (or index) to detect changes over time in a clinical setting is comparable with that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire. Methods: Patients with liver metastases (n = 75) filled out the five domains of the EQ-5D self-classifier, the EQ VAS, and the EORTC QLQ C-30 (a disease-specific (cancer) HRQoL questionnaire). The HRQoL instruments were completed before intervention, and 1/2 month and 3 and 6 months after intervention. Three analyses were performed. First, the EQ-5D index (based on self-classification) was compared to the EQ VAS. Second, the EQ-5D domains were compared to corresponding EORTC QLQ C-30 scales. Third, EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were compared with the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Effect size was chosen as the metric of responsiveness. Results: The EQ-5D index was slightly less responsive than the EQ VAS. Overall, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D index and EQ VAS was equal to the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Conclusion: Despite its generic principle and the apparent crudeness of its framework, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D proved to be comparable to that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire in this specific clinical setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1247 / 1253
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   THE EUROPEAN-ORGANIZATION-FOR-RESEARCH-AND-TREATMENT-OF-CANCER QLQ-C30 - A QUALITY-OF-LIFE INSTRUMENT FOR USE IN INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL-TRIALS IN ONCOLOGY [J].
AARONSON, NK ;
AHMEDZAI, S ;
BERGMAN, B ;
BULLINGER, M ;
CULL, A ;
DUEZ, NJ ;
FILIBERTI, A ;
FLECHTNER, H ;
FLEISHMAN, SB ;
DEHAES, JCJM ;
KAASA, S ;
KLEE, M ;
OSOBA, D ;
RAZAVI, D ;
ROFE, PB ;
SCHRAUB, S ;
SNEEUW, K ;
SULLIVAN, M ;
TAKEDA, F .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1993, 85 (05) :365-376
[2]   NOTE ON SENSITIVITY - NEGLECTED PSYCHOMETRIC CONCEPT [J].
AIKEN, LR .
PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, 1977, 45 (03) :1330-1330
[3]   Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity [J].
Badia, X ;
Schiaffino, A ;
Alonso, J ;
Herdman, M .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1998, 7 (04) :311-322
[4]   A taxonomy for responsiveness [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Bombardier, C ;
Katz, JN ;
Wright, JG .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 54 (12) :1204-1217
[5]   TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE EUROQOL AND COMPARING IT WITH THE SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
BRAZIER, J ;
JONES, N ;
KIND, P .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1993, 2 (03) :169-180
[6]   EuroQol: The current state of play [J].
Brooks, R .
HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 37 (01) :53-72
[7]  
Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA
[8]   THEORY OF GENERALIZABILITY - A LIBERALIZATION OF RELIABILITY THEORY [J].
CRONBACH, LJ ;
RAJARATNAM, N ;
GLESER, GC .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1963, 16 (02) :137-163
[9]   Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[10]   An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures - The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument [J].
EssinkBot, ML ;
Krabbe, PFM ;
Bonsel, GJ ;
Aaronson, NK .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (05) :522-537