A comparison of directly elicited and pre-scored preference-based measures of quality of life: the case of adhesive capsulitis
- 320 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAdhesive capsulitis Measurement of health-related quality of life Stiff shoulder Time trade-off method Willingness to pay Multi-attribute utility scale
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.
- 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.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
- 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
- 31.ABS. (1997). National health survey: SF-36 population norms. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- 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
- 38.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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