IAI SPECIAL EDITION: Comparison and validation of EuroQol-5 Dimension level and Short Form-6 Dimension in cataract patients
Keywords:Cataract, EuroQol-5D-5L, Short Form-6D, Utility index
Background: EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) are instruments that have been widely used to assess utility index as an outcome parameter in pharmacoeconomic studies. The choice of an instrument will have an important effect and can influence the decision making of an economic health evaluation.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the SF-6D and EQ-5D instruments to assess utility index in cataract patients.
Methods: The study was conducted with on 448 cataract patients in a hospital in Yogyakarta. The subjects of the study were outpatient cataract patients over 45 years of age. The patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the SF-6D, EQ-5D, and visual function questionnaire instruments. The construct validity was tested including known group validity using the independent sample t test and ANOVA, convergent validity with the Spearman correlation, ceiling effect, and bland and Altmand plots.
Results: A total of 448 cataract patients, mean age 64.7 (10.1) years, showed utility index assessed using the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D instruments, which were 0.7 (0.2) and 0.8 (0.1), respectively. Convergent validity shows that the EQ-5D-5L dimensions have a moderate to very strong correlation (0.4-0.9) with the dimensions on VFQ-25, as well as the SF-6D (0.4-0.8). The known group validity shows that both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D can differentiate the patient's health status based on cataract surgery, visual acuity, and comorbidity. The Bland Altman plot shows the level of agreement between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D of 91.7%. In better health status, the utility index of EQ-5D-5L is higher and vice versa, in the worse health status the utility index of SF-6D is higher.
Conclusion: Both the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D instruments are valid for assessing the utility index in cataract patients. By using different instruments, there are differences in the utility value of cataract patients based on their health status. Therefore it is necessary to consider in choosing the instrument in assessing utility as an outcome parameter in pharmacoeconomic study.
Akkaya, S., Duzova, S., Sahin, O., Kazokoglu, H., & Bavbek, T. (2016). National Eye Institute Visual Function Scale in Type 2 Diabetes Patients. Journal of Ophthalmology, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1549318
Andayani, T.M., Kristina, S.A., Endarti, D., Haris, R.N.H., & Rahmawati, A. (2020). Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Short-Form 6D on the General Population in Indonesia. Value in Health Regional Issues, 21(C), p. 205-210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.11.004
Bozzani, F.M., Alavi, Y., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Kuper, H. (2012). A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BioMed Central Opthalmology, 12, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-12-43
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, p. 271-292, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8
Brazier, J.E. & Roberts, J.R. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), p. 851-859, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
Brazier, J., Connel, J., Papaloannou, D., Mukuria, C., Mulhern, B., & Peasgood, T. (2014). A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. National Insitute for Health Research, 18(34), https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18340
Breheny, K., Hollingworth, W., Kandiyali, R., Dixon, P., Loose, A., Grzeda, M., & Sparrow, J. (2020). Assessing the construct validity and responsiveness of Preference Based Measures (PBMs) in cataract surgery patients. Quality of Life Research, 29, p. 1935-1946, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02443-3
Chen, J., Wong, C.K.H., McGhee, S.M., Pang, P.K.P., & Cho Yu W. (2014). A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Plos One, 9(11), p. e112389, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112389
Euroqol. (2019). Valuation of EQ-5D
Groessl, E.J, Liu, L., Sklar, M., Tally, S.R., Kaplan, R.M., & Ganiats, T.G. (2013). Measuring the Impact of Cataract Surgery on Generic and Vision-Specific Quality of Life. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), p. 1405-1414, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0270-z
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measure : literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, p. 1417-32, https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
Hwang, J.S., Lee, Y.P., Bae, S.H., Kim, H.K., Yi, K., & Shin, J. (2018). Utility of the optical quality analysis system for decision-making in cataract surgery. BioMed Central Opthalmology, 18(231), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0904-1
Islam, N., Khan, I.H., Ferdous, N., & Rasker, J.J. (2017). Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the English “Short form SF 12v2” into Bengali in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,15(109), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0683-z
Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A.A., Tounta, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18, p. 87-97, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9420-8
Kontodimopoulos, N., Argiriou, M., Theakos, N., & Niakas, D. (2011). The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure. The European Journal of Health Economics, 12, p. 383-391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0252-4
Laitinen, A. (2009). Reduced visual acuity and impact on quality of life. National Institute for Health and Welfare
Lamoureux, E.L., Fenwick, E., Pesud, K., & Tan, D. (2011). The impact of cataract surgery on quality of life. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, 22, p. 19-27, https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283414284
McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D.C., & Ratdiffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(133), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0
Morris, D., Fraser, S.G., & Gray, C. (2007). Cataract surgery and quality of life implication. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(1), p. 105-108, https://doi.org/10.2147/ciia.2007.2.1.105
Obradovic, M., Lal, A., & Liedgens, H. (2013). Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, p. 110, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110
Purba, F.D., Hunfeld, J.A.M., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T.S., Sadaarjoen, S.S., Ramos-Goni, J.M., Passchier, J., & Busschbach, J.J. (2017). The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set. PharmacoEconomics, 35(11), 1153-1165, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9
Visser, M.S., Amarakoon, S., Missotten, T., Timman, R., & Busschbach, J.J. (2017). SF-6D utility values for the better- and worse-seeing eye for health states based on the Snellen equivalent in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Plos One, 12, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169816
Wu, J., Han, Y., Zhao, F., Zhou, J., Chen, Z., & Sun. (2014). Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(156), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0156-6