Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain
Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain
Obective: to assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.
Methods: participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by <20%, and iii) improved by > or = 20%).
Results: the EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p < 0.001), but not the SF-6D.
Conclusion: the EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.
Barton, Garry R.
bf3455b3-9bee-4af6-94e8-930b2a383b33
Sach, Tracey H.
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Avery, Anthony J.
ba667df1-c7e8-4812-855c-8f5d8c37ed86
Doherty, Michael
ab3e38b1-4e66-48b0-ae34-ec710c4fce2c
Jenkinson, Claire
3bf90b54-206f-4230-b44a-0c51a26cfa5b
Muir, Kenneth R.
4703d677-d4f5-4386-aa1e-2de40e31354f
Barton, Garry R.
bf3455b3-9bee-4af6-94e8-930b2a383b33
Sach, Tracey H.
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Avery, Anthony J.
ba667df1-c7e8-4812-855c-8f5d8c37ed86
Doherty, Michael
ab3e38b1-4e66-48b0-ae34-ec710c4fce2c
Jenkinson, Claire
3bf90b54-206f-4230-b44a-0c51a26cfa5b
Muir, Kenneth R.
4703d677-d4f5-4386-aa1e-2de40e31354f
Barton, Garry R., Sach, Tracey H., Avery, Anthony J., Doherty, Michael, Jenkinson, Claire and Muir, Kenneth R.
(2009)
Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain.
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 7, [12].
(doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-12).
Abstract
Obective: to assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.
Methods: participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by <20%, and iii) improved by > or = 20%).
Results: the EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p < 0.001), but not the SF-6D.
Conclusion: the EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.
Text
1478-7547-7-12
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 17 July 2009
e-pub ahead of print date: 17 July 2009
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 478123
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/478123
ISSN: 1478-7547
PURE UUID: 12b3c969-4734-4c0b-b08d-939f79beb446
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 22 Jun 2023 16:33
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:19
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Garry R. Barton
Author:
Tracey H. Sach
Author:
Anthony J. Avery
Author:
Michael Doherty
Author:
Claire Jenkinson
Author:
Kenneth R. Muir
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics