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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

An empirical comparison of the OPQoL-Brief, EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT in a community dwelling population of older people

Authors: Billingsley Kaambwa, Liz Gill, Nicola McCaffrey, Emily Lancsar, Ian D. Cameron, Maria Crotty, Len Gray, Julie Ratcliffe

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study examined the relationships between a newly developed older person-specific non-preference-based quality of life (QoL) instrument (Older People’s Quality of Life brief questionnaire (OPQoL-brief)) and two generic preference-based instruments (the EQ-5D-3L Level (EQ-5D-3 L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in a community-dwelling population of Australian older people receiving aged care services.

Methods

We formulated hypotheses about the convergent validity between the instruments (examined by Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney, Kruskal Wallis and Spearman’s correlation tests) and levels of agreement (assessed using intra class correlation (ICC) and modified Bland-Altman plots based on normalized Z EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT utilities and OPQoL-Brief summary scores).

Results

The utilities/summary scores for 87 participants (aged 65–93 years) were moderately but positively correlated. Moderate convergent validity was evident for a number of instrument dimensions with the strongest relationship (r = 0.57) between ‘enjoy life’ (OPQoL-Brief) and ‘social contact’ (ASCOT). The overall ICC was 0.54 and Bland-Altman scatter plots showed 3–6 % of normalized Z-scores were outside the 95 % limits of agreement suggesting moderate agreement between all three instruments (agreement highest between the OPQoL-Brief and the ASCOT).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the OPQoL-Brief, the ASCOT and the EQ-5D_3L are suitable for measuring quality of life outcomes in community-dwelling populations of older people. Given the different constructs underpinning these instruments, we recommend that choice of instrument should be guided by the context in which the instruments are being applied. Currently, the OPQoL-Brief is not suitable for use in cost-utility analyses as it is not preference-based. Given their different perspectives, we recommend that both the ASCOT and the EQ-5D are applied simultaneously to capture broader aspects of quality of life and health status within cost-utility analyses within the aged care sector. Future research directed towards the development of a new single preference-based instrument that incorporates both health status and broader aspects of quality of life within quality adjusted life year calculations for older people would be beneficial.
Literature
1.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2013.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3101.0-Australian demographic statistics, Jun 2014. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2014.
3.
Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Muir G. Evidence-based health care and public health: how to make decisions about health services and public health. 3rd ed. London: Churchil Livingstone Elsevier; 2009.
5.
Makai P, Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Nieboer AP. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;102:83–93.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Drummond MF, Sculpher M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
7.
Harris A, Bulfone L. In: Jost TS, McGraw-Hill International, editors. Health care coverage determinations: an international comparative study. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004.
8.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004.
9.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 1994.
10.
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:874–82.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ratcliffe J, Laver K, Couzner L, Cameron ID, Gray L, Crotty M. Not just about costs: the role of health economics in facilitating decision making in aged care. Age Ageing. 2010;39:426–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
13.
Browning C, Heine C, Thomas S. Promoting ageing well: psychological contributions. In: Ricciardelli L, Caltabiano M, editors. Applied topics in health psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 57–71.
14.
Australian Human Rights Commission. Human rights approach to ageing and health: respect and choice. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission; 2012
15.
Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Older people specific health status and quality of life: a structured review of self-assessed instruments. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11:315–27.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9):1–164.
17.
Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-I: Measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:345–54.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bowling A, Hankins M, Windle G, Bilotta C, Grant R. A short measure of quality of life in older age: the performance of the brief older People’s quality of life questionnaire (OPQOL-brief). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56:181–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers AM, Brazier J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–166.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuations for Eq-5d health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care. 2002;40:442–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, Crook T. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry. 1982;139:1136–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kaambwa B, Lancsar E, McCaffrey N, Chen G, Gill L, Cameron ID, et al. Investigating consumers‘and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:81–94.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bowling A, Stenner P. Which measure of quality of life performs best in older age? a comparison of the OPQOL, CASP-19 and WHOQOL-OLD. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:273–80.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Bowling A. The psychometric properties of the older People’s quality of life questionnaire compared with the CASP-19 and the WHOQOL-OLD. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2009.
27.
Milte CM, Walker R, Luszcz MA, Lancsar E, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12:73–84.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Malley J, Towers A-M, Netten A, Brazier J, Forder J, Flynn T. An assessment of the construct validity of the ASCOT measure of social care-related quality of life with older people. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Netten A, Beadle-Brown J, Caiels J, Forder J, Malley J, Smith N, et al. Adult social care outcomes toolkit: main guidance v2.1-PSSRU discussion paper 2716/3. Kent: PSSRU; 2011.
31.
Netten A, Forder J, Malley J, Smith N, Towers A. Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit-Additional guidance: Scoring ASCOT v2.1. Kent: PSSRU; 2011.
32.
Coast J, Peters TJ, Richards SH, Gunnell DJ. Use of the EuroQoL among elderly acute care patients. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:1–10.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, Kohler B. Using the SF-36 and euroqol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:195–204.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lyons RA, Crome P, Monaghan S, Killalea D, Daley JA. Health status and disability among elderly people in three UK districts. Age Ageing. 1997;26:203–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
van den Bos GA, Triemstra AH. Quality of life as an instrument for need assessment and outcome assessment of health care in chronic patients. Qual Health Care. 1999;8:247–52.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
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.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Econ. 2014;23:729–42.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D: discussion paper 172, Centre for health economics discussion paper series. York: University of York: Centre for Health Economics; 1999.
40.
Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Bmj. 1998;316:736–41.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52:591–611.CrossRef
42.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1991.
43.
Dancey C, Reidy J. Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for windows. London: Prentice-Hall; 2004.
44.
Allen J, Inder K, Lewin T, Attia J, Kelly B. Construct validity of the assessment of quality of life-6D (AQoL-6D) in community samples. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:61.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
45.
Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:42.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
46.
Peters LL, Boter H, Slaets JP, Buskens E. Development and measurement properties of the self assessment version of the INTERMED for the elderly to assess case complexity. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74:518–22.CrossRefPubMed
47.
van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen APD, Hoogendijk EO, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, et al. Comparing measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3 L, ICECAP-O, and ASCOT in frail older adults. Value in Health. 2015;18:35–43.CrossRefPubMed
48.
StataCorp LP. Intercooled Stata 13.1 for Windows, College station. Texas: StataCorp, L.P; 2014.
49.
50.
Petreca DR, Benedetti TRB, Silva DAS. Validation of the flexibility component of the AAHPERD functional fitness assessment in Brazilian older adults. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria Desempenho Humano. 2011;13:455–60.
51.
van Hateren KJ, Alkhalaf A, Kleefstra N, Groenier KH, de Jong PE, de Zeeuw D, et al. Comparison of midregional pro-A-type natriuretic peptide and the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for predicting mortality and cardiovascular events. Clin Chem. 2012;58:293–7.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Bross IDJ. Critical levels, statistical language and scientific inference. In: Godambe VP, Sprott DA, editors. Foundations of statistical inference. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada, Ltd; 1971.
53.
Abdi H. The bonferonni and šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In: Salkind NJ, editor. Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Sage: Thousand Oaks; 2007. p. 103–7.
54.
Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:621–35.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care. 2005;43:1078–86.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Wu J, Han Y, Zhao F-L, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:156.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
57.
Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:463–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
58.
Coast J, Peters T, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Flynn T. An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:967–76.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Fisher RA. On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron. 1921;1:3–32.
60.
Chen G, Flynn T, Stevens K, Brazier J, Huynh E, Sawyer M, et al. Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: an empirical comparison of the child health utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value Health. 2015;18:432–8.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Ratcliffe J, Stevens K, Flynn T, Brazier J, Sawyer M. An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:717–25.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Stockler MR, Osoba D, Corey P, Goodwin PJ, Tannock IF. Convergent discriminitive, and predictive validity of the prostate cancer specific quality of life instrument (PROSQOLI) assessment and comparison with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial-specific module. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:653–66.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Chren M-M, Lasek RJ, Quinn LM, Covinsky KE. Convergent and discriminant validity of a generic and a disease-specific instrument to measure quality of life in patients with skin disease. J Investig Dermatol. 1997;108:103–7.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Mehta T, Venkata Subramaniam A, Chetter I, McCollum P. Assessing the validity and responsiveness of disease-specific quality of life instruments in intermittent claudication. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:46–52.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Hughes TE, Kaplan RM, Coons SJ, Draugalis JR, Johnson JA, Patterson TL. Construct validities of the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the MOS-HIV-34 Health Survey for HIV-infected patients. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:439–46.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:9–16. discussion 16–17.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Kaambwa B, Billingham L, Bryan S. Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ. 2011.
68.
Sengupta N, Nichol MB, Wu J, Globe D. Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med Care. 2004;42:927–37.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Sexton E, King-Kallimanis BL, Conroy RM, Hickey A. Psychometric evaluation of the CASP-19 quality of life scale in an older Irish cohort. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2549–59.CrossRefPubMed
70.
71.
Yohannes AM, Tampubolon G. Determinants of quality of life in older people from the english longitudinal study of ageing. European Psychiatry. 2012;27:1.CrossRef
72.
Gott M, Barnes S, Parker C, Payne S, Seamark D, Gariballa S, et al. Predictors of the quality of life of older people with heart failure recruited from primary care. Age Ageing. 2006;35:172–7.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Lubetkin E, Jia H, Franks P, Gold M. Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2187–96.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Hellström Y, Hallberg IR. Perspectives of elderly people receiving home help on health, care and quality of life. Health Soc Care Community. 2001;9:61–71.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H, Martinez M, Vilagut G, et al. Comparison of population health status in six european countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care. 2009;47:255–61.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
An empirical comparison of the OPQoL-Brief, EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT in a community dwelling population of older people
Authors
Billingsley Kaambwa
Liz Gill
Nicola McCaffrey
Emily Lancsar
Ian D. Cameron
Maria Crotty
Len Gray
Julie Ratcliffe
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0357-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Combined association of fitness and central adiposity with health-related quality of life in healthy Men: a cross-sectional study

Research

Rasch analysis of the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation questionnaire

Research

Working mechanism of a multidimensional computerized adaptive test for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

Research

Construction of quality of life change patterns: example in oncology in a phase III therapeutic trial (FFCD 0307)

Research

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of yoruba version of the short-form 36 health survey

Research

Factors associated with the life satisfaction amongst the rural elderly in Odisha, India