Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 8/2014

01-08-2014 | Systematic Review

A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis

Authors: Ayse Kuspinar, Nancy E. Mayo

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The reliability and validity of generic utility measures have not yet been summarized in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). It is important to assess the psychometric properties of these measures, to ensure that the values obtained by the scoring system are valid for interpretation and utilization by clinicians, researchers and policy makers. Therefore, the objective of this review was to summarize the evidence from published literature on the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in MS.

Methods

A structured literature search was conducted by using multiple electronic databases. All potentially relevant abstracts and full-text articles were read to identify publications that may be eligible for inclusion in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted to combine correlation coefficient values for convergent validity. The Schmidt–Hunter method, a weighted mean of the correlation coefficient values, was used. Heterogeneity, the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to between-study differences rather than chance, was assessed using the I 2 statistic.

Results

The following generic utility measures were identified: the EQ-5D (n = 9)/EQ-5D-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) (n = 1), followed by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3/2 (HUI2/HUI3) (n = 3), the SF-6D (n = 2), the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) (n = 2), and the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) scale (n = 1). Ceiling and floor effects were present for the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, but not for the HUI3. The EQ-5D, the SF-6D and the HUI3 demonstrated excellent reliability. In terms of discriminative ability, the SF-6D and the QWB scale were not able to differentiate between moderately and severely disabled MS patients, and the EQ-5D was not able to differentiate between those who were mildly and moderately disabled. The AQOL and the HUI3, on the other hand, demonstrated good discriminative ability, as both measures were able to differentiate between all levels of disability. As for convergent validity, the HUI2/HUI3 were highly correlated (r = 0.7) against measurement instruments that evaluated impairments such as disease severity, ambulation and manual dexterity. The EQ-5D, SF-6D and the QWB scale demonstrated small to moderate correlations (r = 0.4) against instruments evaluating impairments, and slightly stronger correlations against measures of activity limitations/participation restrictions and health-related quality of life (HRQL) (r = 0.6).

Conclusion

To our knowledge this is the first study to review the validity and reliability of generic utility measures in MS. The HUI3 demonstrated the strongest psychometric properties when compared with other utility measures. However, the HUI3 only measures impairment and excludes important components of HRQL such as participation restrictions. The EQ-5D, the SF-6D and the QWB scale, on the other hand, do include items on participation. However, these measures demonstrated a lack of content validity in MS by missing certain domains that were important to the disease, as well as difficulty in differentiating between different levels of disability. The addition of MS-specific ‘bolt-ons’ to generic utility measures and the development of an MS specific utility measure are possible areas of exploration for future research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.PubMedCrossRef Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.PubMedCrossRef Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28:395–413.PubMedCrossRef Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28:395–413.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Maxwell A. Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res 2013;1–12. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Maxwell A. Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res 2013;1–12.
7.
go back to reference Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:132.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:132.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, Wang Q, Towse A, Drummond MF. Using QALYs in cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:673–85.PubMedCrossRef Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, Wang Q, Towse A, Drummond MF. Using QALYs in cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:673–85.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, Brand CS, Brazier JE. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4016–23.PubMedCrossRef Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, Brand CS, Brazier JE. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4016–23.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3:103–5.PubMedCrossRef Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3:103–5.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14:907–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14:907–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Myers JA, McPherson KM, Taylor WJ, Weatherall M, McNaughton HK. Duration of condition is unrelated to health-state valuation on the EuroQoL. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:209–15.PubMedCrossRef Myers JA, McPherson KM, Taylor WJ, Weatherall M, McNaughton HK. Duration of condition is unrelated to health-state valuation on the EuroQoL. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:209–15.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:58–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:58–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Fayers PM, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 405–29. Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Fayers PM, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 405–29.
15.
go back to reference Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873–84.PubMedCrossRef Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873–84.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:938–52.PubMedCrossRef Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:938–52.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Mokkink LB. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
18.
go back to reference Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Wu AW, Mathews WC, Kozin F, Orenstein D. The Quality of Well-Being Scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis. Med Care. 1989;27:S27–43.PubMedCrossRef Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Wu AW, Mathews WC, Kozin F, Orenstein D. The Quality of Well-Being Scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis. Med Care. 1989;27:S27–43.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:509–20.PubMedCrossRef Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:509–20.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, Torrance GW, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S. A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:923–8.PubMed Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, Torrance GW, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S. A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:923–8.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.PubMedCrossRef Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.PubMedCrossRef Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker SR, Rosser R, editors. Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Springer, Netherlands; 1993. p. 185–95. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker SR, Rosser R, editors. Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Springer, Netherlands; 1993. p. 185–95.
24.
go back to reference Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–36.PubMedCrossRef Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–36.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:209–24.PubMedCrossRef Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:209–24.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Richardson J, Atherton Day N, Peacock S, Iezzi A. Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 instrument. Aust Econ Rev. 2004;37:62–88.CrossRef Richardson J, Atherton Day N, Peacock S, Iezzi A. Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 instrument. Aust Econ Rev. 2004;37:62–88.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Brink Y, Louw QA. Clinical instruments: reliability and validity critical appraisal. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:1126–32.PubMedCrossRef Brink Y, Louw QA. Clinical instruments: reliability and validity critical appraisal. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:1126–32.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.PubMedCrossRef Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford university press; 2008.CrossRef Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford university press; 2008.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.PubMedCrossRef McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Polgar S, Thomas SA. Introduction to research in the health sciences. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. Polgar S, Thomas SA. Introduction to research in the health sciences. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
32.
go back to reference StatsDirect L. StatsDirect statistical software. StatsDirect, UK; 2005. StatsDirect L. StatsDirect statistical software. StatsDirect, UK; 2005.
33.
go back to reference Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Kikuchi H, Mifune N, Niino M, Ohbu S, Kira J, Kohriyama T, Ota K, Tanaka M, Ochi H, Nakane S, Maezawa M, Kikuchi S. Impact and characteristics of quality of life in Japanese patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:119–31.PubMedCrossRef Kikuchi H, Mifune N, Niino M, Ohbu S, Kira J, Kohriyama T, Ota K, Tanaka M, Ochi H, Nakane S, Maezawa M, Kikuchi S. Impact and characteristics of quality of life in Japanese patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:119–31.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Twiss J, Doward LC, McKenna SP, Eckert B. Interpreting scores on multiple sclerosis-specific patient reported outcome measures (the PRIMUS and U-FIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:117.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Twiss J, Doward LC, McKenna SP, Eckert B. Interpreting scores on multiple sclerosis-specific patient reported outcome measures (the PRIMUS and U-FIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:117.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Ploughman M, Austin M, Stefanelli M, Godwin M. Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:483–7.PubMedCrossRef Ploughman M, Austin M, Stefanelli M, Godwin M. Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:483–7.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, Russell N, Nixon R. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health. 2007;10:54–60.PubMedCrossRef Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, Russell N, Nixon R. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health. 2007;10:54–60.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Moore F, Wolfson C, Alexandrov L, Lapierre Y. Do general and multiple sclerosis-specific quality of life instruments differ? Can J Neurol Sci. 2004;31:64–71.PubMed Moore F, Wolfson C, Alexandrov L, Lapierre Y. Do general and multiple sclerosis-specific quality of life instruments differ? Can J Neurol Sci. 2004;31:64–71.PubMed
39.
go back to reference Nicholl CR, Lincoln NB, Francis VM, Stephan TF. Assessing quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:597–603.PubMedCrossRef Nicholl CR, Lincoln NB, Francis VM, Stephan TF. Assessing quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:597–603.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don’t agree: cross sectional study of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1997;314:1580–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don’t agree: cross sectional study of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1997;314:1580–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Fogarty E, Walsh C, Adams R, McGuigan C, Barry M, Tubridy N. Relating health-related Quality of Life to disability progression in multiple sclerosis, using the 5-level EQ-5D. Mult Scler. 2013;19:1190–6.PubMedCrossRef Fogarty E, Walsh C, Adams R, McGuigan C, Barry M, Tubridy N. Relating health-related Quality of Life to disability progression in multiple sclerosis, using the 5-level EQ-5D. Mult Scler. 2013;19:1190–6.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, Rice G, Rosner AJ, Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;6:91–8.PubMedCrossRef Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, Rice G, Rosner AJ, Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;6:91–8.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Jones CA, Pohar SL, Warren S, Turpin KV, Warren KG. The burden of multiple sclerosis: a community health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:1–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Jones CA, Pohar SL, Warren S, Turpin KV, Warren KG. The burden of multiple sclerosis: a community health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:1–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Khan F, McPhail T, Brand C, Turner-Stokes L, Kilpatrick T. Multiple sclerosis: disability profile and quality of life in an Australian community cohort. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006;29:87–96.PubMedCrossRef Khan F, McPhail T, Brand C, Turner-Stokes L, Kilpatrick T. Multiple sclerosis: disability profile and quality of life in an Australian community cohort. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006;29:87–96.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Khan F, Pallant J. Chronic pain in multiple sclerosis: prevalence, characteristics, and impact on quality of life in an Australian community cohort. J Pain. 2007;8:614–23.PubMedCrossRef Khan F, Pallant J. Chronic pain in multiple sclerosis: prevalence, characteristics, and impact on quality of life in an Australian community cohort. J Pain. 2007;8:614–23.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Schwartz CE, Vollmer T, Lee H. Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. Neurology. 1999;52:63.PubMedCrossRef Schwartz CE, Vollmer T, Lee H. Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. Neurology. 1999;52:63.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Yorkston KM, Kuehn CM, Johnson KL, Ehde DM, Jensen MP, Amtmann D. Measuring participation in people living with multiple sclerosis: a comparison of self-reported frequency, importance and self-efficacy. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:88–97.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Yorkston KM, Kuehn CM, Johnson KL, Ehde DM, Jensen MP, Amtmann D. Measuring participation in people living with multiple sclerosis: a comparison of self-reported frequency, importance and self-efficacy. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:88–97.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Fougeyrollas LN. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:170–80.PubMedCrossRef Fougeyrollas LN. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:170–80.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Read JL, Quinn RJ, Hoefer MA. Measuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:7S–21S.PubMedCrossRef Read JL, Quinn RJ, Hoefer MA. Measuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:7S–21S.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997;12:783–91.CrossRef Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997;12:783–91.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Andresen EM, Rothenberg BM, Kaplan RM. Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Med Care. 1998;36:1349–60.PubMedCrossRef Andresen EM, Rothenberg BM, Kaplan RM. Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Med Care. 1998;36:1349–60.PubMedCrossRef
52.
53.
go back to reference Whitehurst DG, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:646–54.PubMedCrossRef Whitehurst DG, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:646–54.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:118–27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:118–27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:853–74.PubMedCrossRef Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:853–74.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis
Authors
Ayse Kuspinar
Nancy E. Mayo
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

PharmacoEconomics 8/2014 Go to the issue