Level of agreement between patient-reported EQ-5D responses and EQ-5D responses mapped from the SF-12 in an injury population

Belinda Jane Gabbe, Emma McDermott, Pamela May Simpson, Sarah Derrett, Shanthi Neranjana Ameratunga, Suzanne Polinder, Ronan Anthony Lyons, Frederick Rodriguez Rivara, James Edward Harrison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Comparing health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes between studies is difficult due to the wide variety of instruments used. Comparing study outcomes and facilitating pooled data analyses requires valid crosswalks between HRQL instruments. Algorithms exist to map 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) responses to EQ-5D item responses and preference weights, but none have been validated in populations where disability is prevalent, such as injury. Methods: Data were extracted from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates Study (Injury-VIBES) for 10,166 adult, hospitalized trauma patients, with both the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and SF-12 data responses at six and 12-months postinjury. Agreement between actual (patient-reported) and estimated (mapped from SF-12) EQ-5D-3L item responses and preference weights was assessed using Kappa, Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Moderate agreement was observed for usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Agreement was substantial for mobility and self-care items. The mean differences in preference weights were -0.024 and -0.012 at six and 12months (p <0.001), respectively. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement were large compared to the range of valid preference weight values (-0.56 to 1.00). Estimated EQ-5D-3L responses under-reported disability for all items except pain/discomfort. Conclusions: Caution should be taken when using EQ-5D-3L responses mapped from the SF-12 to describe patient outcomes or when undertaking economic evaluation, due to the underestimation of disability associated with mapped values. The findings from this study could be used to adjust expected EQ-5D-3L preference weights when estimated from SF-12 item responses when combining data from studies that use either instrument.
Original languageEnglish
Article number14
Pages (from-to)1 - 8
Number of pages8
JournalPopulation Health Metrics
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this

Gabbe, Belinda Jane ; McDermott, Emma ; Simpson, Pamela May ; Derrett, Sarah ; Ameratunga, Shanthi Neranjana ; Polinder, Suzanne ; Lyons, Ronan Anthony ; Rivara, Frederick Rodriguez ; Harrison, James Edward. / Level of agreement between patient-reported EQ-5D responses and EQ-5D responses mapped from the SF-12 in an injury population. In: Population Health Metrics. 2015 ; Vol. 13, No. 1. pp. 1 - 8.
@article{c37a2a0c058947bdb0ae9eb0285a6a3e,
title = "Level of agreement between patient-reported EQ-5D responses and EQ-5D responses mapped from the SF-12 in an injury population",
abstract = "Background: Comparing health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes between studies is difficult due to the wide variety of instruments used. Comparing study outcomes and facilitating pooled data analyses requires valid crosswalks between HRQL instruments. Algorithms exist to map 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) responses to EQ-5D item responses and preference weights, but none have been validated in populations where disability is prevalent, such as injury. Methods: Data were extracted from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates Study (Injury-VIBES) for 10,166 adult, hospitalized trauma patients, with both the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and SF-12 data responses at six and 12-months postinjury. Agreement between actual (patient-reported) and estimated (mapped from SF-12) EQ-5D-3L item responses and preference weights was assessed using Kappa, Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Moderate agreement was observed for usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Agreement was substantial for mobility and self-care items. The mean differences in preference weights were -0.024 and -0.012 at six and 12months (p <0.001), respectively. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement were large compared to the range of valid preference weight values (-0.56 to 1.00). Estimated EQ-5D-3L responses under-reported disability for all items except pain/discomfort. Conclusions: Caution should be taken when using EQ-5D-3L responses mapped from the SF-12 to describe patient outcomes or when undertaking economic evaluation, due to the underestimation of disability associated with mapped values. The findings from this study could be used to adjust expected EQ-5D-3L preference weights when estimated from SF-12 item responses when combining data from studies that use either instrument.",
author = "Gabbe, {Belinda Jane} and Emma McDermott and Simpson, {Pamela May} and Sarah Derrett and Ameratunga, {Shanthi Neranjana} and Suzanne Polinder and Lyons, {Ronan Anthony} and Rivara, {Frederick Rodriguez} and Harrison, {James Edward}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1186/s12963-015-0047-z",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "1 -- 8",
journal = "Population Health Metrics",
issn = "1478-7954",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Level of agreement between patient-reported EQ-5D responses and EQ-5D responses mapped from the SF-12 in an injury population. / Gabbe, Belinda Jane; McDermott, Emma; Simpson, Pamela May; Derrett, Sarah; Ameratunga, Shanthi Neranjana; Polinder, Suzanne; Lyons, Ronan Anthony; Rivara, Frederick Rodriguez; Harrison, James Edward.

In: Population Health Metrics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 14, 2015, p. 1 - 8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Level of agreement between patient-reported EQ-5D responses and EQ-5D responses mapped from the SF-12 in an injury population

AU - Gabbe, Belinda Jane

AU - McDermott, Emma

AU - Simpson, Pamela May

AU - Derrett, Sarah

AU - Ameratunga, Shanthi Neranjana

AU - Polinder, Suzanne

AU - Lyons, Ronan Anthony

AU - Rivara, Frederick Rodriguez

AU - Harrison, James Edward

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: Comparing health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes between studies is difficult due to the wide variety of instruments used. Comparing study outcomes and facilitating pooled data analyses requires valid crosswalks between HRQL instruments. Algorithms exist to map 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) responses to EQ-5D item responses and preference weights, but none have been validated in populations where disability is prevalent, such as injury. Methods: Data were extracted from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates Study (Injury-VIBES) for 10,166 adult, hospitalized trauma patients, with both the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and SF-12 data responses at six and 12-months postinjury. Agreement between actual (patient-reported) and estimated (mapped from SF-12) EQ-5D-3L item responses and preference weights was assessed using Kappa, Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Moderate agreement was observed for usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Agreement was substantial for mobility and self-care items. The mean differences in preference weights were -0.024 and -0.012 at six and 12months (p <0.001), respectively. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement were large compared to the range of valid preference weight values (-0.56 to 1.00). Estimated EQ-5D-3L responses under-reported disability for all items except pain/discomfort. Conclusions: Caution should be taken when using EQ-5D-3L responses mapped from the SF-12 to describe patient outcomes or when undertaking economic evaluation, due to the underestimation of disability associated with mapped values. The findings from this study could be used to adjust expected EQ-5D-3L preference weights when estimated from SF-12 item responses when combining data from studies that use either instrument.

AB - Background: Comparing health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes between studies is difficult due to the wide variety of instruments used. Comparing study outcomes and facilitating pooled data analyses requires valid crosswalks between HRQL instruments. Algorithms exist to map 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) responses to EQ-5D item responses and preference weights, but none have been validated in populations where disability is prevalent, such as injury. Methods: Data were extracted from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates Study (Injury-VIBES) for 10,166 adult, hospitalized trauma patients, with both the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and SF-12 data responses at six and 12-months postinjury. Agreement between actual (patient-reported) and estimated (mapped from SF-12) EQ-5D-3L item responses and preference weights was assessed using Kappa, Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Moderate agreement was observed for usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Agreement was substantial for mobility and self-care items. The mean differences in preference weights were -0.024 and -0.012 at six and 12months (p <0.001), respectively. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement were large compared to the range of valid preference weight values (-0.56 to 1.00). Estimated EQ-5D-3L responses under-reported disability for all items except pain/discomfort. Conclusions: Caution should be taken when using EQ-5D-3L responses mapped from the SF-12 to describe patient outcomes or when undertaking economic evaluation, due to the underestimation of disability associated with mapped values. The findings from this study could be used to adjust expected EQ-5D-3L preference weights when estimated from SF-12 item responses when combining data from studies that use either instrument.

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4474565/pdf/12963_2015_Article_47.pdf

U2 - 10.1186/s12963-015-0047-z

DO - 10.1186/s12963-015-0047-z

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Population Health Metrics

JF - Population Health Metrics

SN - 1478-7954

IS - 1

M1 - 14

ER -