IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i5d10.1007_s40273-023-01349-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Content Comparison of Quality-of-Life Instruments Used in Economic Evaluations of Sleep Disorder Interventions: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Billingsley Kaambwa

    (Flinders University)

  • Taylor-Jade Woods

    (Flinders University)

  • Andrea Natsky

    (Flinders University)

  • Norma Bulamu

    (Flinders University)

  • Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa

    (Flinders University)

  • Kelly A. Loffler

    (Flinders University)

  • Alexander Sweetman

    (Flinders University)

  • Peter G. Catcheside

    (Flinders University)

  • Amy C. Reynolds

    (Flinders University)

  • Robert Adams

    (Flinders University)

  • Danny J. Eckert

    (Flinders University)

Abstract

Background Assessment of quality of life (QoL) in people living with sleep disorders using questionnaires is necessary to compare intervention benefits. Knowledge of the content and concepts covered by specific QoL instruments is essential to determine which instruments are best suited for conducting economic evaluations of sleep-related interventions. Objectives This review aims to identify the QoL instruments that have been applied in economic evaluations of sleep disorder interventions and compare their conceptual overlap and content coverage using the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Methods A systematic review of full economic evaluations in sleep published in peer-reviewed journals from conception to 30 May, 2023 was conducted. MEDLINE, PsychInfo, ProQuest, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Emcare were searched for eligible studies. Studies incorporating either generic or sleep-specific QoL instruments as the primary or secondary measures of effectiveness within a full economic evaluation were included. Quality appraisal against the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and EURONHEED checklists and mapping of QoL items to ICF categories were performed by two reviewers, with a third helping settle any potential differences. Results Sixteen instruments were identified as having been used in sleep health economic evaluations. The EQ-5D-3L, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Insomnia Severity Index were the most widely used, but the latter two are predominantly diagnostic tools and not specifically designed to guide economic evaluations. Other instruments with broader ICF content coverage have been least used, and these include the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, 15 Dimensions, Short-Form 6 Dimensions, 12-item Short Form Survey, 36-item Short Form Survey and the GRID Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Conclusions This study provides an overview of current QoL instruments used in economic evaluations of sleep with respect to their content coverage. A combination of generic and sleep-specific instruments with broader ICF content coverage is recommended for such evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Billingsley Kaambwa & Taylor-Jade Woods & Andrea Natsky & Norma Bulamu & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Kelly A. Loffler & Alexander Sweetman & Peter G. Catcheside & Amy C. Reynolds & Robert Adams & Danny, 2024. "Content Comparison of Quality-of-Life Instruments Used in Economic Evaluations of Sleep Disorder Interventions: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 507-526, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01349-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01349-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-023-01349-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-023-01349-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01349-5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.