Objective. To assess the longitudinal validity of widely used preference-weighted measurement systems for economic studies of intervertebral disk herniation (IDH). Methods. Using data at baseline and 1 year from 1000 Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants with IDH and complete data, the authors considered the EQ-5D with UK and US values (EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US), 2 versions of the Health Utilities Index (HUI3 and HUI2), the SF-6D, and a regression-estimated quality of well-being score (eQWB). Differences in mean change scores (MCS) were assessed using signed rank tests, and Spearman correlations were calculated for change scores by system pairs. Using the Oswestry Disability Index, symptom satisfaction, progress rating, and self-perceived health ratings as criterion measures, the authors tested for trend in MCS across levels of change in criteria. They calculated floor and ceiling effects, effect size (ES), standardized response mean, and minimal important difference estimates. Results. All systems demonstrated linear trends with external criteria and moderate to strong correlations between systems. However, differences in performance were evident. SF-6D and eQWB were most responsive (ES: 1.9 and 2.3, respectively), whereas EQ-5D-US and EQ-5D-UK were least responsive (ES: 1.23/1.20). Ceiling and floor effects were noted for all systems within key dimensions and for EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US for overall score. MCS ranged from 0.40 (0.38) for EQ-5D-UK to 0.13 (0.09) for eQWB and differed significantly, except between EQ-5D-US and HUI2. Conclusions. This research supports the validity of all systems for measuring change in persons with IDH, without finding a clearly superior system. The unique characteristics of each system revealed in this study should guide system choice.
BloomBS. Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making [see comment]. Am J Managed Care. 2004;10:329–35.
2.
DicksonMHurstJJacobzoneS. Survey of Pharmacoeconomic Assessment Activity in Eleven Countries. Paris: OECD; 2003.
3.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
4.
KaplanRMAndersonJP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res. 1988;23:203–35.
5.
BrooksR. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
6.
DolanP. Modelling valuations for EuroQol Health States. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.
7.
BoyleMHFurlongWFeenyDTorranceGWHatcherJ. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index—Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:249–57.
8.
FeenyDFurlongWBoyleMTorranceGW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.
9.
TorranceGWFurlongWFeenyDBoyleM. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:503–20.
10.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
11.
BrazierJUsherwoodTHarperRThomasK. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115–28.
12.
RichardsonGMancaA. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ. 2004;13:1203–10.
13.
BartonGRBankartJDavisAC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol. 2005;44:157–63.
14.
BelangerABerthelotJ-MGuimondEHouleC. A Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Generic Health Status Measures in the Household Population: McMaster Health Utilities Index (Mark 3) and the EQ-5D. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Health Analysis and Modelling Group; 2000.
15.
BrazierJRobertsJTsuchiyaA. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873–4.
16.
EspallarguesMCzoski-MurrayCJBansbackNJ. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2005;46:4016–23.
17.
LuoNJohnsonJAShawJWFeenyDCoonsSJ. 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.
18.
MarraCAEsdaileJMGuhD. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004;42:1125–31.
19.
McDonoughCMGroveMRTostesonTDLurieJDHilibrandASTostesonAN. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1321–32.
20.
PickardASJohnsonJAFeenyDH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207–19.
21.
HatoumHTBrazierJEAkhrasKS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health. 2004;7:602–9.
22.
FeenyDWuLEngK. Comparing Short Form 6D, Standard Gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:1659–70.
23.
Conner-SpadyBSuarez-AlmazorME. A comparison of preference-based health status tools in patients with musculoskeletal disease. 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. 2001:235–45.
24.
Conner-SpadyBSuarez-AlmazorME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41:791–801.
25.
Conner-SpadyBVoaklanderDCSuarez-AlmazorME. The effect of different EuroQol weights on potential QALYs gained in patients with hip and knee replacement. 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. 2000:127–37.
26.
BoschJLHuninkM. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:591–601.
27.
Suarez-AlmazorMKendallCJohnsonJSkeithKVincentD. Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings: comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology. 2000;39:783–90.
28.
BoschJLHalpernEFGazelleGS. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. Medi Decis Making. 2002;22:403–9.
29.
KaplanRGroesslEJSenguptaNSieberWJGaniatsTG. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2005;43:79–87.
30.
LongworthLBryanS. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12:1061–7.
31.
NeumannPJSandbergEAArakiSSKuntzKMFeenyDWeinsteinMC. A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer’s disease. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:413–22.
32.
HawthorneGRichardsonJDayNA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 2001;33:358–70.
33.
HollandRSmithRDHarveyISwiftLLenaghanE. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Econ. 2004;13:793–805.
34.
StavemKFrolandSSHellumKB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:971–80.
35.
HollingworthWDeyoRASullivanSDEmersonSSGrayDTJarvikJG. The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ. 2002;11:71–85.
36.
MacranSWeatherlyHKindP. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003;41:218–31.
37.
BirkmeyerNJWeinsteinJNTostesonAN. Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2002;27:1361–72.
38.
ShawJWJohnsonJACoonsSJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.
39.
FeenyDFurlongWTorranceGW. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.
40.
TostesonAN. Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine. 2000;25:3161–6.
41.
TostesonANHammondCS. Quality-of-life assessment in osteoporosis: health-status and preference-based measures. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:289–303.
42.
FrybackDGLawrenceWFMartinPAKleinRKleinBE. Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:1–9.
43.
FairbankJCPynsentPB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–52; discussion 2952.
44.
FairbankJCCouperJDaviesJBO’BrienJP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–3.
45.
BeatonDEBombardierCKatzJNWrightJG. A taxonomy for responsiveness [see comment]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–17.
46.
TerweeCDekkerFWiersingaWPrummelMBossuytP. On assessing responsiveness of health related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–62.
47.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.
48.
WaltersSJBrazierJ. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523–32.
49.
BombardierCHaydenJBeatonDE. Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:431–8.
50.
O’BrienBJSpatheMBlackhouseGSeverensJLDorianPBrazierJ. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ. 2003;12:975–81.
51.
LamersLMMeerdingWJSeverensJLBrouwerWB. The relationship between productivity and health-related quality of life: an empirical exploration in persons with low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:805–13.
52.
MarraCAWoolcottJCKopecJA. 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. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1571–82.
53.
OgaTNishimuraKTsukinoMSatoSHajiroTMishimaM. A comparison of the responsiveness of different generic health status measures in patients with asthma. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:555–63.
54.
van StelHFBuskensE. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
55.
LangfittJVickreyBMcDermottM. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:899–914.
56.
ThomaASpragueSVeltriKDukuEFurlongW. Methodology and measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments: a prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:44.
57.
BharmalMThomasJIII. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health. 2006;9:262–71.
58.
TaylorSJTaylorAEFoyMAFoggAJ. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:1805–12.
59.
SherbourneCUnutzerJSchoenbaumM. Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression?Med Care. 2001;39:1246–59.
60.
TostesonANLurieJDTostesonTD. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years [see comment]. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:845–53.
61.
van den HoutWBPeulWCKoesBWBrandRKievitJThomeerRT. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2008;336:1355–8.
62.
ThomasKJMacPhersonHRatcliffeJ. Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–109.
63.
JooreMBrunenbergDNelemansP. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health. 2010;13:222–9.
