Measuring subjective wellbeing in patients with heart disease: relationship and comparison between health-related quality of life instruments
This study aimed to validate the use of subjective wellbeing (SWB) in patients with heart disease, to explore the complementary vs substitute relationship between SWB and health status utility (HSU), and to reveal which life domains matter for patients with heart disease compared to healthy persons.
Data were obtained from a large multi-national, multi-instrument comparison survey. Subjective wellbeing instruments (ONS4, PWI, SWLS), health status utility instruments (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI3 and SF-6D) and a disease-specific quality of life instrument (MacNew) were administered among patients with heart disease (N = 943). Validity and sensitivity of SWBs were studied. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the difference in descriptive systems between the SWB, HSU and MacNew. The importance of life domain satisfaction in explaining overall life satisfaction was investigated using regression analysis.
The known-group analysis showed that both SWB and HSU scores differed according to changes in the severity of heart disease. EFA showed that SWB and HSU were generally complementary instruments. The life domains that were significantly important to patients with heart disease were standard of living, followed by achieving in life, personal relationships, personal health, and future security. Compared to the healthy public, personal health and future security were significantly more important life domains.
Assessing SWB provides complementary information on understanding heart patients’ subjective outcome over the use of quality of life instruments alone. Given the adverse psychological impact of heart disease, addressing the important domain revealed by SWB assessment in management planning should be considered.
KeywordsSubjective wellbeing Health status utility MacNew Health-related quality of life Heart disease
We thank an anonymous referee who requested us to explore the non-linearity issue.
Dr Lan Gao is supported by the Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship funded by Deakin University. Associate Professor Gang Chen is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (Project Number DE180100647) funded by the Australian Government.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Koch, M. B., Davidsen, M., Andersen, L. V., Juel, K., & Jensen, G. B. (2015). Increasing prevalence despite decreasing incidence of ischaemic heart disease and myocardial infarction. A national register based perspective in Denmark, 1980–2009. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 22(2), 189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Rumsfeld, J. S., MaWhinney, S., McCarthy, M., Shroyer, A. L. W., VillaNueva, C. B., O’Brien, M., et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(14), 1298–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Quality-of-Life and Clinical-Trials. (1995). Lancet, 346(8966), 1–2.Google Scholar
- 15.Tanno, K., Sakata, K., Ohsawa, M., Onoda, T., Itai, K., Yaegashi, Y., Tamakoshi, A., & Grp, J. S. (2009). Associations of ikigai as a positive psychological factor with all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality among middle-aged and elderly Japanese people: Findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67(1), 67–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Tindle, H. A., Chang, Y. F., Kuller, L. H., Manson, J. E., Robinson, J. G., Rosal, M. C., Siegle, G. J., & Matthews, K. A. (2009). Optimism, cynical hostility, and incident coronary heart disease and mortality in the Women’s Health Initiative. Circulation, 120(8), 656–662.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Last Accessed 4, June, 2018.
- 18.European Medicines Agency. (2005). Committee for medicinal products for human use. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf. Last Accessed 4, June, 2018.
- 19.Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring Subjective wellbeing for public policy: Recommendations on measures. CEP Special Papers 23, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.Google Scholar
- 22.Personal Well-being user guidance. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide. Last accessed 24 August 2018.
- 23.International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index: 5th Edition. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
- 28.Heiskanen, J., Tolppanen, A. M., Roine, R. P., Hartikainen, J., Hippelainen, M., Miettinen, H., & Martikainen, J. (2016). Comparison of EQ-5D and 15D instruments for assessing the health-related quality of life in cardiac surgery patients. The European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes, 2(3), 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Lezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2011). Modelling the utility of health states with the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) 8D instrument: Overview and utility scoring algorithm. Available from: http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper63.pdf. Last Accessed 4th June 2018.
- 33.Health Utilities Inc. Leaders in health-related quality of life research. Available from: http://www.healthutilities.com. Last Accessed 4th June 2018.
- 37.Oldridge, N., Guyatt, G., Jones, N., Crowe, J., Singer, J., Feeny, D., Mckelvie, R., Runions, J., Streiner, D., & Torrance, G. (1991). Effects on quality-of-life with comprehensive rehabilitation after acute myocardial-infarction. American Journal of Cardiology, 67(13), 1084–1089.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- 46.Gong, Y., Handberg, E. M., Gerhard, T., Cooper-Dehoff, R. M., Ried, L. D., Johnson, J. A., Pepine, C. J., & Investigators, I. (2009). Systolic blood pressure and subjective well-being in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinical Cardiology, 32(11), 627–632.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Easterlin, R. A., & Sawangfa, O. (2009). Happiness and domain satisfaction: New directions for the economics of happiness. Happiness, Economics and Politics: Towards a Multi-Disciplinary Approach, 70–94.Google Scholar