IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i3d10.1007_s40258-016-0293-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U in a Post-Hospitalisation Population of Frail Older People Living in Residential Aged Care

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (Flinders University)

  • Thomas Flint

    (Flinders University)

  • Tiffany Easton

    (Flinders University)

  • Maggie Killington

    (Flinders University)

  • Ian Cameron

    (University of Sydney)

  • Owen Davies

    (Flinders University)

  • Craig Whitehead

    (Flinders University)

  • Susan Kurrle

    (University of Sydney)

  • Michelle Miller

    (Flinders University)

  • Enwu Liu

    (Flinders University)

  • Maria Crotty

    (Flinders University)

Abstract

Objective To empirically compare the measurement properties of the DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U instruments to the EQ-5D-5L and its proxy version (CEQ-5D-5L) in a population of frail older people living in residential aged care in the post-hospitalisation period following a hip fracture. Methods A battery of instruments to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognition, and clinical indicators of depression, pain and functioning were administered at baseline and repeated at 4 weeks’ follow-up. Descriptive summary statistics were produced and psychometric analyses were conducted to assess the levels of agreement, convergent validity and known group validity between clinical indicators and HRQoL measures. Results There was a large divergence in mean (SD) utility scores at baseline for the EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-U [EQ-5D-5L mean 0.21 (0.19); DEMQOL-U mean 0.79 (0.14)]. At 4 weeks’ follow-up, there was a marked improvement in EQ-5D-5L scores whereas DEMQOL-U scores had deteriorated. [EQ-5D-5L mean 0.45 (0.38); DEMQOL-U mean 0.58 (0.38)]. The EQ-5D and CEQ-5D-5L were more responsive to the physical recovery trajectory experienced by frail older people following surgery to repair a fractured hip, whereas the DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U appeared more responsive to the changes in delirium and dementia symptoms often experienced by frail older people in this period. Conclusions This study presents important insights into the HRQoL of a relatively under-researched population of post-hospitalisation frail older people in residential care. Further research should investigate the implications for economic evaluation of self-complete versus proxy assessment of HRQoL and the choice of preference-based instrument for the measurement and valuation of HRQoL in older people exhibiting cognitive decline, dementia and other co-morbidities.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Ratcliffe & Thomas Flint & Tiffany Easton & Maggie Killington & Ian Cameron & Owen Davies & Craig Whitehead & Susan Kurrle & Michelle Miller & Enwu Liu & Maria Crotty, 2017. "An Empirical Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U in a Post-Hospitalisation Population of Frail Older People Living in Residential Aged Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 399-412, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0293-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0293-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0293-7
    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/s40258-016-0293-7?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    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. Jenny Cleland & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe, 2019. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 781-801, December.

    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. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    5. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    6. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    7. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    8. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    9. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    10. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    11. Richard Cookson & Owen Cotton-Barrett & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2016. "Years of good life based on income and health: Re-engineering cost-benefit analysis to examine policy impacts on wellbeing and distributive justice," Working Papers 132cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    13. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Thomas Butt & Adnan Tufail & Gary Rubin, 2017. "Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 23-32, February.
    15. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    16. Logan Trenaman & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Fernanda Almeida & Najib Ayas & Larry Lynd & Carlo Marra & Dawn Stacey & Nick Bansback, 2015. "Exploring the Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Use in Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnea," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 671-682, July.
    17. Tuomas Korhonen & Virpi Sillanpää & Aki Jääskeläinen, 2023. "Anchor practices that guide horizontal performance measurement: an interventionist case study of the financial aspect of new technology implementation in healthcare," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 787-816, September.
    18. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    19. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    20. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.

    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:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0293-7. 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: 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.