IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i2p273-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agreement about Identifying Patients Who Change over Time

Author

Listed:
  • David Feeny
  • Karen Spritzer
  • Ron D. Hays
  • Honghu Liu
  • Theodore G. Ganiats
  • Robert M. Kaplan
  • Mari Palta
  • Dennis G. Fryback

Abstract

Background. Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life all use the same dead = 0.00 to perfect health = 1.00 scale, but there are substantial differences among measures. Objective. The objective was to examine agreement in classifying patients as better, stable, or worse. Methods. The EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3, Quality of Well-Being–Self-Administered scale, Short-Form 36 (Short-Form 6D), and disease-targeted measures were administered prospectively in 2 clinical cohorts. The study was conducted at academic medical centers: University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, San Diego; University of Wisconsin–Madison; and University of Southern California. Patients undergoing cataract extraction surgery with lens replacement completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Patients newly referred to congestive heart failure specialty clinics completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). In both cohorts, subjects completed surveys at baseline and at 1 and 6 months. The NEI-VFQ-25 and MLHF were used as gold standards to assign patients to categories of change. Agreement was assessed using κ. Results. There were 376 cataract patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 1-month follow-up were available on all measures for 210 cases. Using criteria specified by Altman, agreement was poor for 6 of 9 pairs of comparisons and fair for 3 pairs. There were 160 heart failure patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 6-month follow-up were available for 86 cases. Agreement was negligible for 5 pairs and fair for 1. The study was conducted on selected patients at a few academic medical centers. Conclusions. The results underscore the lack of interchangeability among different preference-based measures.

Suggested Citation

  • David Feeny & Karen Spritzer & Ron D. Hays & Honghu Liu & Theodore G. Ganiats & Robert M. Kaplan & Mari Palta & Dennis G. Fryback, 2012. "Agreement about Identifying Patients Who Change over Time," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 273-286, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:273-286
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11418671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11418671
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11418671?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. 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.
    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. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Iris Buder & Cathleen Zick & Norman Waitzman, 2020. "The Contribution of Physical Activity to Health-Related Quality of Life: New Population Estimates from National Survey Data," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 55-71, March.
    3. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Micha J. Pilz & Simon Seyringer & Lára R. Hallsson & Andrew Bottomley & Femke Jansen & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Marianne J. Rutten & Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw & Peter D. Siersema & Eva Mar, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1539-1555, December.
    5. Weidong Huang & Hongjuan Yu & Chaojie Liu & Guoxiang Liu & Qunhong Wu & Jin Zhou & Xin Zhang & Xiaowen Zhao & Linmei Shi & Xiaoxue Xu, 2017. "Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life of Chinese Adults in Heilongjiang Using EQ-5D-3L," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Efthymiadou, Olina & Mossman, Jean & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 159-165.
    7. Huguet, Nathalie & Kaplan, Mark S. & Feeny, David, 2008. "Socioeconomic status and health-related quality of life among elderly people: Results from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 803-810, February.
    8. Ariel Beresniak & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Jean Auray & Alain Wever & Jean-Claude Praet & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Danielle Dupont & Michel Lamure & Gerard Duru, 2015. "Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 61-69, January.
    9. Maike Stolz & Christian Albus & Manfred E. Beutel & Hans-Christian Deter & Kurt Fritzsche & Christoph Herrmann-Lingen & Matthias Michal & Katja Petrowski & Joram Ronel & Jobst-Hendrik Schultz & Wolfga, 2023. "Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with depressive symptoms: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1297-1307, November.
    10. Giacaman, Rita & Mataria, Awad & Nguyen-Gillham, Viet & Safieh, Rula Abu & Stefanini, Angelo & Chatterji, Somnath, 2007. "Quality of life in the Palestinian context: An inquiry in war-like conditions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 68-84, April.
    11. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    12. Markiewicz, Katarzyna & van Til, Janine A. & Steuten, Lotte M.G. & IJzerman, Maarten J., 2016. "Commercial viability of medical devices using Headroom and return on investment calculation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 338-346.
    13. 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, December.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Sandy Tubeuf & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & David Cottrell, 2019. "Parental Health Spillover in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Evidence from Self-Harming Adolescents in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 513-530, April.
    17. Louis Matza & Sandhya Sapra & John Dillon & Anupama Kalsekar & Evan Davies & Mary Devine & Jessica Jordan & Amanda Landrian & David Feeny, 2015. "Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 1005-1018, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. McTaggart-Cowan, H & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "Combining Rasch and cluster analysis: a novel method for developing rheumatoid arthritis states for use in valuation studies," MPRA Paper 29834, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:32:y:2012:i:2:p:273-286. 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.