Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2018

Open Access 01-05-2018 | Original Paper

What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews

Authors: Aureliano Paolo Finch, John Edward Brazier, Clara Mukuria

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the evidence on the validity and responsiveness of five commonly used preference-based instruments, the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL, by undertaking a review of reviews.

Methods

Four databases were investigated using a strategy refined through a highly sensitive filter for systematic reviews. References were screened and a search for grey literature was performed. Identified citations were scrutinized against pre-defined eligibility criteria and data were extracted using a customized extraction template. Evidence on known group validity, convergent validity and responsiveness was extracted and reviewed by narrative synthesis. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR checklist.

Results

Thirty reviews were included, sixteen of which were of excellent or good quality. The body of evidence, covering more than 180 studies, was heavily skewed towards EQ-5D, with significantly fewer studies investigating HUI3 and SF-6D, and very few the 15D and AQoL. There was also lack of head-to-head comparisons between GPBMs and the tests reported by the reviews were often weak. Where there was evidence, EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL seemed generally valid and responsive instruments, although not for all conditions. Evidence was not consistently reported across reviews.

Conclusions

Although generally valid, EQ-5D, SF-6D and HUI3 suffer from some problems and perform inconsistently in some populations. The lack of head-to-head comparisons and the poor reporting impedes the comparative assessment of the performance of GPBMs. This highlights the need for large comparative studies designed to test instruments’ performance.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Not all the studies included in the reviews were relevant to the research question investigated in this overview. However, this overview draws on more than 180 studies included in the 30 reviews.
 
Literature
1.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J.A., Tsuchiya, A.: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
2.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A.: Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and “micro-utility effects”. Qual. Life Res. 24, 2045 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Nord, E., Richardson, J., Macarounas-Kirchmann, K.: Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthc. 9, 463–468 (1993)CrossRef
5.
Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, B., Roberts, J.: Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ5D and the SF6D value sets in the UK. J. Health Econ. 25(2), 334–346 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
7.
Walters, S.J.: Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and healthcare evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester (2009)CrossRef
8.
McDowell, I., Newell, C.: Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)
9.
Wilkin, D., Hallam, L., Doggett, L.A.: Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford Medical Press, Oxford (1992)
10.
Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S.: Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration. www.​cochrane-handbook.​org (2011). Accessed March 2011
11.
12.
13.
14.
Brazier, J., Deverill, M.: A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 8, 41–51 (1999)CrossRefPubMed
15.
Cohen, J.: Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (rev. ed.). Academic Press, New York (1977)
16.
17.
Brazier, J., Connell, J., Papaioannou, D., Mukuria, C., Mulhern, B., Peasgood, T., et al.: A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol. Assess. 18(34), 1–188 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Papaioannou, D., Brazier, J., Parry. G.: How to measure quality of life for cost-effectiveness analyses in personality disorders: a systematic review. HEDS discussion paper 13/02. (2013)
19.
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 14(6), 907–920 (2011)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Peasgood, T., Brazier, J., Papaioannou, D.: A systematic review of the validity and responsiveness of EQ5D and SF6D for depression and anxiety. HEDS discussion paper 12/15 (unpublished) (2012)
21.
Davis, S., Wailoo, A.: A review of the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in people with urinary incontinence. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, 20 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Derrett, S., Black, J., Herbison, G.P.: Outcome after injury—a systematic literature search of studies using the EQ-5D. J. Trauma 67(4), 883–890 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
23.
Janssen, M.F., Lubetkin, E.I., Sekhobo, J.P., Pickard, A.S.: The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet. Med. 28(4), 395–413 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kuspinar, A., Mayo, N.E.: A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics 32(8), 759–773 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
25.
Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernandez Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al.: Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol. Assess. 18(9), 1–224 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
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 15, 118 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Yang, Y., Longworth, L., Brazier, J.: An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment. Qual. Life Res. 22, 2813 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Petrillo, J., van Nooten, F., Jones, P., Rutten-van Molken, M.: Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preference for change? Pharmacoeconomics 29(11), 917–932 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pickard, A.S., Wilke, C., Jung, E., Patel, S., Stavem, K., Lee, T.A.: Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir. Med. 102(4), 519–536 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
31.
Pickard, A.S., Wilke, C.T., Lin, H.W., Lloyd, A.: Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 25(5), 365–384 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
32.
Szende, A., Schramm, W., Flood, E., Larson, P., Gorina, E., Rentz, A.M., et al.: Health-related quality of life assessment in adult haemophilia patients: a systematic review and evaluation of instruments. Haemophilia 9(6), 678–687 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
33.
Wu, A.W., Hanson, K.A., Harding, G., Haider, S., Tawadrous, M., Khachatryan, A., et al.: Responsiveness of the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapies. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12, 11 (2013)
34.
Dyer, M.T.D., Goldsmith, K.A., Sharples, L.S., Buxton, M.J.: A review of health utilities using the EQ5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 8, 13 (2010)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Hounsome, N., Orrell, M., Edwards, R.T.: EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health 14(2), 390–399 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
36.
Whitehurst, D.G., Noonan, V.K., Dvorak, M.F., Bryan, S.: A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord 50(9), 646–654 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
37.
Castelino, M., Abbott, J., McElhone, K., Teh, L.S.: Comparison of the psychometric properties of health-related quality of life measures used in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: a review of the literature. Rheumatology 52, 684 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
38.
DeVine, J., Norvell, D.C., Ecker, E., Fourney, D.R., Vaccaro, A., Wang, J., et al.: Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 69–74, 2011 (1976)
39.
Haywood, K.L., Garratt, A.M., Fitzpatrick, R.: Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual. Life Res. 14(7), 1651–1668 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
40.
Linder, J.A., Singer, D.E., Ancker, M., Atlas, S.J.: Measures of health-related quality of life for adults with acute sinusitis. A systematic review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 18(5), 390–401 (2003)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Hill, M.R., Noonan, V.K., Sakakibara, B.M., Miller, W.C., SCIRE Research Team: Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 48(6), 438–450 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
42.
Speight, J., Reaney, M.D., Barnard, K.D.: Not all roads lead to Rome—a review of quality of life measurement in adults with diabetes. Diabet. Med. 26(4), 315–327 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
43.
Bansback, N., Ara, R., Karnon, J., Anis, A.: Economic evaluations in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical review of measures used to define health states. Pharmacoeconomics 26(5), 395–408 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
44.
Ching, S., Thoma, A., McCabe, R.E., Antony, M.M.: Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 111(1), 469–480 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
45.
Holloway, L., Humphrey, L., Heron, L., Pilling, C., Kitchen, H., Hojbjerre, L., et al.: Patient-reported outcome measures for systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials: a review of content validity, face validity and psychometric performance. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12, 116 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Sanghera, S., Frew, E., Kai, J., Gupta, J., Elizabeth, R.T.: An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 98, 149–153 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
47.
Richardson, J., McKie, J., Bariola, E.: Multi-attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer, A.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of health economics, pp. 341–357. San Diego, Elsevier Science. (2014)CrossRef
48.
Metadata
Title
What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews
Authors
Aureliano Paolo Finch
John Edward Brazier
Clara Mukuria
Publication date
01-05-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Introduction of therapeutic reference pricing in Slovenia and its economic consequences

Original Paper

Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach

Original Paper

Determinants of catastrophic health expenditure in Nigeria

Original Paper

Primary care supply and quality of care in England

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of combined serum anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG antibody and serum pepsinogen concentrations for screening for gastric cancer risk in Japan

Editorial

How can dental insurance be optimized?