Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2963–2971 | Cite as

A comparison of directly elicited and pre-scored preference-based measures of quality of life: the case of adhesive capsulitis

  • Anthony H. Harris
  • Joanne Youd
  • Rachelle Buchbinder



To assess the convergent validity and comparative responsiveness in measuring the health-related quality of life associated with adhesive capsulitis of a disease-specific measure (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index), a generic quality of life measure (SF-36), a preference-based multi-attribute utility scale (assessment of quality of life), and two direct patient preference elicitation methods (willingness to pay and time trade-off).


Instruments administered to all 156 participants in both arms of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of physiotherapy following arthrographic joint distension at baseline were reported at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Convergent validity was measured using both pooled correlation between instruments and within subjects over time. Responsiveness was measured using the effect size for those with no improvement, moderate improvement, and marked improvement.


With the exception of the monetary measure, all of the instruments showed a low quality of life at baseline with adhesive capsulitis (66– 87 % of perfect health) and a substantial improvement in quality of life to week 26 on recovery. The time trade-off and willingness to pay measures of patient preferences were not responsive to changes in health, but all of the other instruments were at least moderately sensitive to change and moderately correlated with one another.


These findings verify the significant adverse impact of adhesive capsulitis upon quality of life found in larger studies. There was a fair degree of convergence, as measured by the correlation between the instruments but while the time trade-off mean values were quite plausible, at a mean of 87 % of full health before treatment, there was a low correlation with health profile and disease-specific measures. It may be that the time trade-off measured wider aspects of quality of life and that individuals were not prepared to trade survival for potential gains in a self-limiting condition.


Adhesive capsulitis Measurement of health-related quality of life Stiff shoulder Time trade-off method Willingness to pay Multi-attribute utility scale 


  1. 1.
    Felson, D. T., Anderson, J. J., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Chernoff, M., Fried, B., et al. (1993). The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The committee on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 36(6), 729–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beurskens, A. J., de Vet, H. C., Koke, A. J., van der Heijden, G. J., & Knipschild, P. G. (1995). Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine, 20(9), 1017–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Campbell, J., & Stitt, L. W. (1988). Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Journal of Rheumatology, 15(12), 1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pincus, T., Summey, J. A., Soraci, S. A, Jr, Wallston, K. A., & Hummon, N. P. (1983). Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 26(11), 1346–1353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roach, K. E., Budiman-Mak, E., Songsiridej, N., & Lertratanakul, Y. (1991). Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care & Research, 4(4), 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchbinder, R., Bombardier, C., Yeung, M., & Tugwell, P. (1995). Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures’ responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 38(11), 1568–1580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jolles, B. M., Buchbinder, R., & Beaton, D. E. (2005). A study compared nine patient-specific indices for musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(8), 791–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The health utilities index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Group, T. E. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1996). Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Quality in Health Care, 5(2), 81–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ethgen, O., Tancredi, A., Lejeune, E., Kvasz, A., Zegels, B., & Reginster, J. Y. (2003). Do utility values and willingness to pay suitably reflect health outcome in hip and knee osteoarthritis? A comparative analysis with the WOMAC Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(11), 2452–2459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawker, G., Melfi, C., Paul, J., Green, R., & Bombardier, C. (1995). Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. Journal of Rheumatology, 22(6), 1193–1196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Picavet, H. S., & Hoeymans, N. (2004). Health related quality of life in multiple musculoskeletal diseases: SF-36 and EQ-5D in the DMC3 study. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(6), 723–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Revicki, D. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 477–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carette, S. (2000). Adhesive capsulitis–research advances frozen in time? [comment]. Journal of Rheumatology, 27(6), 1329–1331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hazleman, B. (1972). The painful stiff shoulder. Rheumatology and Physical Medicine, 11(8), 413–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green, S., Buchbinder, R., Glazier, R., & Forbes, A. (1998). Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions for painful shoulder: Selection criteria, outcome assessment, and efficacy. [see comment]. BMJ, 316(7128), 354–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Green, S., Buchbinder, R., Glazier, R., & Forbes, A. (2006). Interventions for shoulder pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001156.pub2.
  23. 23.
    Michener, L. A., & Leggin, B. G. (2001). A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14(2), 68–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buchbinder, R., Green, S., Forbes, A., Hall, S., & Lawler, G. (2004). Arthrographic joint distension with saline and steroid improves function and reduces pain in patients with painful stiff shoulder: Results of a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(3), 302–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buchbinder, R., Hoving, J., Green, S., Forbes, A., Hall, S., & Nash, P. (2004). Short-course prednisolone therapy for the stiff painful shoulder (adhesive capsulitis or frozen shoulder): A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63, 1460–1469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buchbinder, R., Youd, J. M., Green, S., Stein, A., Forbes, A., Harris, A., et al. (2007). Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy following glenohumeral joint distension for adhesive capsulitis: A randomized trial. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(6), 1027–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Heijden, G. J., Leffers, P., & Bouter, L. M. (2000). Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(1), 29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) [erratum appears in Am J Ind Med 1996 Sep;30(3):372]. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(6), 602–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Christie, A., Hagen, K. B., Mowinckel, P., & Dagfinrud, H. (2009). Methodological properties of six shoulder disability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18(1), 89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van den Hout, W. B., Vermeulen, H. M., Rozing, P. M., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2005). Impact of adhesive capsulitis and economic evaluation of high-grade and low-grade mobilisation techniques. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 51(3), 141–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ABS. (1997). National health survey: SF-36 population norms. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prosser, L. A., & Wittenberg, E. (2011). Trends in utility elicitation methods: Direct versus indirect methods. Value in Health, 14(3), A149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wark, J., Hristov, E., Osborne, R., & Dalton, A. (2010). Treatment-naive osteoporosis patients strongly prefer once-yearly intravenous therapy: A time trade-off study. Bone, 46, S33.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olsen, J. A., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Theory versus practice: A review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Economics, 10(1), 39–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 2–correlation between subjects. BMJ, 310(6980), 633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1–correlation within subjects. BMJ, 310(6977), 446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ostor, A. J. K., Richards, C. A., Prevost, A. T., Speed, C. A., & Hazleman, B. L. (2005). Diagnosis and relation to general health of shoulder disorders presenting to primary care. Rheumatology, 44(6), 800–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Katz, J. N., Larson, M. G., Phillips, C. B., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1992). Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Medical Care, 30(10), 917–925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ruta, D. A., Hurst, N. P., Kind, P., Hunter, M., & Stubbings, A. (1998). Measuring health status in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness of the short form 36-item health survey (SF-36). British Journal of Rheumatology, 37(4), 425–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Willers, C., Alekna, V., Bianchi, M. L., Clark, P., Curiel, M. D., Dimai, H. P., et al. (2012). Health related quality of life after hip fracture: Differences between EQ-5D and time trade off instruments. Osteoporosis International, 23, S265.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arnesen, T., & Trommald, M. (2004). Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. Journal of Health Services & Research Policy, 9(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Kendall, C., Johnson, J. A., Skeith, K., & Vincent, D. (2000). Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology, 39(7), 783–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony H. Harris
    • 1
  • Joanne Youd
    • 2
  • Rachelle Buchbinder
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Health EconomicsMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Monash Department of Clinical EpidemiologyCabrini HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations