IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i2p270-280.html

A Longitudinal Comparison of 5 Preference-Weighted Health State Classification Systems in Persons with Intervertebral Disk Herniation

Author

Listed:
  • Christine M. McDonough
  • Tor D. Tosteson
  • Anna N. A. Tosteson
  • Alan M. Jette
  • Margaret R. Grove
  • James N. Weinstein

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine M. McDonough & Tor D. Tosteson & Anna N. A. Tosteson & Alan M. Jette & Margaret R. Grove & James N. Weinstein, 2011. "A Longitudinal Comparison of 5 Preference-Weighted Health State Classification Systems in Persons with Intervertebral Disk Herniation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 270-280, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:270-280
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10380924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10380924
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10380924?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Holland & Richard D Smith & Ian Harvey & Louise Swift & Elizabeth Lenaghan, 2004. "Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 793-805, August.
    2. Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210, December.
    3. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 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 & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    4. Michael Dickson & Jeremy Hurst & Stephane Jacobzone, 2003. "Survey of Pharmacoeconomic Assessment Activity in Eleven Countries," OECD Health Working Papers 4, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    3. Wasem, Jürgen & Niebuhr, Dea & Greß, Stefan, 2005. "Marktzugang und Preisbildung auf Arzneimittelmärkten im internationalen Vergleich," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 142, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Business and Economic Studie (IBES).
    4. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    5. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    6. Gre[ss], Stefan & Niebuhr, Dea & Rothgang, Heinz & Wasem, Jurgen, 2005. "Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care: A comparative perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 78-91, July.
    7. Nadia YAKHELEF & Martine AUDIBERT & Bruno PEIRERA & Antoine MONS & Emmanuel CHABERT, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," Working Papers 201534, CERDI.
    8. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    10. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    11. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    12. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Stefan Greß & Jürgen Wasem & Dea Niebuhr, 2006. "Pricing and Reimbursement of Prescription Drugs in German Social Health Insurance," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(02), pages 39-47, July.
    14. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    15. Rachael Hunter & Gianluca Baio & Thomas Butt & Stephen Morris & Jeff Round & Nick Freemantle, 2015. "An Educational Review of the Statistical Issues in Analysing Utility Data for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 355-366, April.
    16. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    17. Julie A. Campbell & Martin Hensher & Amanda Neil & Alison Venn & Stephen Wilkinson & Andrew J. Palmer, 2018. "An Exploratory Study of Long-Term Publicly Waitlisted Bariatric Surgery Patients’ Quality of Life Before and 1 Year After Bariatric Surgery, and Considerations for Healthcare Planners," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 63-76, March.
    18. NamKwen Kim & Kyung-Min Shin & Eun-Sung Seo & Minjung Park & Hye-Yoon Lee, 2020. "Electroacupuncture with Usual Care for Patients with Non-Acute Pain after Back Surgery: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    20. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.
    21. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Bruno Peirera & Antoine Mons & Emmanuel Chabert, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," CERDI Working papers halshs-01241824, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:270-280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.