IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v24y2023i8d10.1007_s10198-022-01543-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with depressive symptoms: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D

Author

Listed:
  • Maike Stolz

    (Hannover Medical School
    Center for Health Economics Research Hanover (CHERH))

  • Christian Albus

    (University of Cologne)

  • Manfred E. Beutel

    (University Medical Center Mainz)

  • Hans-Christian Deter

    (Charité Universitaetsmedizin Berlin)

  • Kurt Fritzsche

    (Medical Center-University of Freiburg)

  • Christoph Herrmann-Lingen

    (University of Göttingen Medical Center
    German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK))

  • Matthias Michal

    (University Medical Center Mainz)

  • Katja Petrowski

    (Technical University of Dresden)

  • Joram Ronel

    (Clinic Barmelweid
    University Hospital Rechts Der Isar, Technische Universitaet München)

  • Jobst-Hendrik Schultz

    (Heidelberg University Hospital)

  • Wolfgang Söllner

    (Paracelsus Medical University Nuremberg)

  • Cora Weber

    (Oberhavel Clinic, Clinic Hennigsdorf)

  • Martina Zwaan

    (Hannover Medical School)

  • Christian Krauth

    (Hannover Medical School
    Center for Health Economics Research Hanover (CHERH))

Abstract

Background The EQ-5D and the SF-6D are examples of commonly used generic preference-based instruments for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, their suitability for mental disorders has been repeatedly questioned. Objective To assess the responsiveness and convergent validity of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with depressive symptoms. Methods The data analyzed were from cardiac patients with depressive symptoms and were collected as part of the SPIRR-CAD (Stepwise Psychotherapy Intervention for Reducing Risk in Coronary Artery Disease) trial. The EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D were compared with the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire) as disease-specific instruments. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation. Effect sizes were calculated and ROC analysis was performed to determine responsiveness. Results Data from 566 patients were analysed. The SF-6D correlated considerably better with the disease-specific instruments (|rs|= 0.63–0.68) than the EQ-5D-3L (|rs|= 0.51–0.56). The internal responsiveness of the SF-6D was in the upper range of a small effect (ES: − 0.44 and − 0.47), while no effect could be determined for the EQ-5D-3L. Neither the SF-6D nor the EQ-5D-3L showed acceptable external responsiveness for classifying patients’ depressive symptoms as improved or not improved. The ability to detect patients whose condition has deteriorated was only acceptable for the EQ-5D-3L. Conclusion Overall, both the convergent validity and responsiveness of the SF-6D are better than those of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with depressive symptoms. The SF-6D appears, therefore, more recommendable for use in studies to evaluate interventions for this population.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01543-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01543-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01543-w
    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/s10198-022-01543-w?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 & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Birk Diedenhofen & Jochen Musch, 2015. "cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Gordon Guyatt, 2002. "Commentary on Jack Dowie, “Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 9-12, January.
    6. W. Greiner & C. Claes & J. J. V. Busschbach & J.-M. Schulenburg, 2005. "Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 124-130, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    4. John Brazier & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Jennifer Roberts & Martin Brown & Tara Symonds & Con Kelleher, 2008. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Index from a Condition-Specific Measure: The King's Health Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    12. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    13. Silvia Garrido & Ildefonso Méndez & José-María Abellán, 2013. "Analysing the Simultaneous Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1813-1838, December.
    14. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & John E. Brazier & Donna Rowen & Michael Barkham, 2013. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 381-395, April.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    19. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Anthony Scott, 2013. "Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-171, February.
    20. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D-3L; SF-6D; Mental disorder; Validity; Responsiveness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01543-w. 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.