Search

Purpose: Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Methods: Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Results: Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.Conclusion: Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: In this study, we investigated what makes a symptom or functional impairment clinically important, that is, relevant for a patient to discuss with a health care professional (HCP). This is the first part of a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group project focusing on the development of thresholds for clinical importance for the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its corresponding computer-adaptive version.Methods: We conducted interviews with cancer patients and HCPs in 6 European countries. Participants were asked to name aspects of a symptom or problem that make it clinically important and to provide importance ratings for a predefined set of aspects (eg, need for help and limitations of daily functioning).Results: We conducted interviews with 83 cancer patients (mean age, 60.3 y; 50.6% men) and 67 HCPs. Participants related clinical importance to limitations of everyday life (patients, 65.1%; HCPs, 77.6%), the emotional impact of a symptom/problem (patients, 53.0%; HCPs, 64.2%), and duration/frequency (patients, 51.8%; HCPs, 49.3%). In the patient sample, importance ratings were highest for worries by partner or family, limitations in everyday life, and need for help from the medical staff. Health care professionals rated limitations in everyday life and need for help from the medical staff to be most important.Conclusions: Limitations in everyday life, need for (medical) help, and emotional impact on the patient or family/partner were found to be relevant aspects of clinical importance. Based on these findings, we will define anchor items for the development of thresholds for clinical importance for the EORTC measures in a Europe-wide field study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aim was to evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the Lupus Impact Tracker (LIT) in five European countries and to assess its acceptability and feasibility from the patient and physician perspectives. Methods. A prospective, observational, cross-sectional and multicentre validation study was conducted in clinical settings. Before the visit, patients completed LIT, Short Form 36 (SF-36) and care satisfaction questionnaires. During the visit, physicians assessed disease activity [Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA)-SLEDAI], organ damage [SLICC/ACR damage index (SDI)] and flare occurrence. Cross-cultural validity was assessed using the Differential Item Functioning method. Results. Five hundred and sixty-nine SLE patients were included by 25 specialists; 91.7% were outpatients and 89.9% female, with mean age 43.5(13.0) years. Disease profile was as follows: 18.3% experienced flares; mean SELENA-SLEDAI score 3.4 (4.5); mean SDI score 0.8 (1.4); and SF-36 mean physical and mental component summary scores: physical component summary 42.8(10.8) and mental component summary 43.0(12.3). Mean LIT score was 34.2(22.3) (median: 32.5), indicating that lupus moderately impacted patients' daily life. A cultural Differential Item Functioning of negligible magnitude was detected across countries (pseudo-R2 difference of 0.01-0.04). Differences were observed between LIT scores and Physician Global Assessment, SELENA-SLEDAI, SDI scores = 0 (P < 0.035) and absence of flares (P = 0.004). The LIT showed a strong association with SF-36 physical and social role functioning, vitality, bodily pain and mental health (P < 0.001). The LIT was well accepted by patients and physicians. It was reliable, with Cronbach a coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 among countries. Conclusion. The LIT is validated in the five participating European countries. The results show its reliability and cultural invariability across countries. They suggest that LIT can be used in routine clinical practice to evaluate and follow patient-reported outcomes in order to improve patient-physician interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]