The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression:: A comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning
The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression:: A comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jad.2007.04.018
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Koenig, Hans-Helmut
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guenther, Oliver H.;Roick, Christiane;Koenig, Hans-Helmut
简介：EQ-5D提供了与健康相关的生活质量的偏好权重（效用），用于计算成本效用分析中的质量调整生命年（QALYs）。本研究的目的是比较EQ-5D效用得分与生活质量、精神病理和社会功能得分的差异。方法：在一项观察性纵向队列研究中，将EQ- 5d效用（EQ视觉模拟量表（EQ VAS）、英国EQ- 5d指数（EQ- 5d index-UK）和德国EQ- 5d指数（EQ- 5d index-D））与基线和18个月时的WHOQOL-BREF、CGI和GAF评分进行比较（N = 104）。采用EQ-5D转换问题（基于患者锚点）和Bech-Rafaelsen忧郁量表（基于临床锚点），将随访时患者的健康状况分为“较差”、“稳定”或“较好”。效应量（ES）用于比较各组评分随时间的差异；使用回归分析得出健康状况与从“稳定”到“较好”健康状况转变相关的有意义的差异得分。结果：反应最明显的器械为CGI（患者型锚：ES=纵杆0.98纵杆；临床型锚：ES=纵杆1.35纵杆）；EQ VAS（以患者为基础的锚：ES=纵条0.84纵条；以临床为基础的锚：ES=纵条1.19纵条）的反应性较大，但在foreq - 5d指数- uk（以患者为基础的锚：ES=纵条0.55纵条；以临床为基础的锚：ES=纵条0.65纵条）和EQ- 5d指数- d（以患者为基础的锚：ES=10.411；以临床为基础的锚：ES=纵条0.45纵条）中较小。与其他工具相比，EQ-5D指数诱导的“较好健康状态”的转变较小。讨论：与EQ VAS和其他仪器相比，EQ- 5d指标的反应性较差，需要更大的患者样本才能发现有意义的差异。(C) 2007 Elsevier B.V.版权所有
Introduction: The EQ-5D provides preference weights (utilities) for health-related quality of life to be used for calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in cost-utility analysis. The aim of this study was to compare differences in EQ-5D utility scores with differences in quality of life, psychopathology, and social functioning scores.Methods: In an observational longitudinal cohort study, EQ-5D utilities (EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS), EQ-5D indices of the United Kingdom (EQ-5D index-UK) and Germany (EQ-5D index-D)) were compared with scores of the WHOQOL-BREF, CGI, and GAF at baseline and at 18 months (N = 104). The patients' health status at follow-up was categorized as "worse", "stable", or "better" using the EQ-5D transition question (patient-based anchor) and the Bech-Rafaelsen melancholy scale (clinician-based anchor). Effect sizes (ES) were used to compare differences in scores within each group over time; regression analysis was used to derive meaningful difference scores in health status associated with a shift from "stable" to "better" health status.Results: The most responsive instrument was the CGI (patient-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 0.98 vertical bar; clinician-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 1.35 vertical bar); responsiveness was large in EQ VAS (patient-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 0.84 vertical bar; clinician-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 1.19 vertical bar), but rather small to mediumforEQ-5D index-UK(patient-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 0.55 vertical bar; clinician-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 0.65 vertical bar)and EQ-5D index-D (patient-based anchor: ES=10.411; clinician-based anchor: ES=vertical bar 0.45 vertical bar). Compared with the other instruments, the shift to a "better health status" was smaller if elicited by the EQ-5D indices.Discussion: Both EQ-5D indices were less responsive and need larger patient samples to detect meaningful differences compared with EQ VAS and the other instruments. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.