Using existing data to identify candidate items for a health state classification system in multiple sclerosis
- 336 Downloads
In multiple sclerosis (MS), the use of preference-based measures is limited to generic measures such as Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3, the EQ-5D and the SF-6D. However, the challenge of using such generic preference-based measures in people with MS is that they may not capture all domains of health relevant to the disease. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to describe the development of a health state classification system for MS patients. The specific objectives are: (1) to identify items best reflecting the domains of quality of life important to people with MS and (2) to provide evidence for the discriminative capacity of the response options by cross-walking onto a visual analog scale of health rating.
The data come from an epidemiologically sampled population of people with MS diagnosed post-1994. The dataset consisted of 206 items relating to impairments, activity limitations, participation restrictions, health perception and quality of life. Important domains were identified from the responses to the Patient Generated Index, an individualized measure of quality of life. The extent to which the items formed a uni-dimensional, linear construct was estimated using Rasch analysis, and the best item was selected using the threshold map.
The sample was young (mean age 43) and predominantly female (n = 140/189; 74 %). The P-PBMSI classification system consisted of five items, with three response levels per item, producing a total of 243 possible health states. Regression coefficient values consistently decreased between response levels and the linear test for trend were statistically significant for all items. The linear test for trend indicated that for each item the response options provided the same discriminative ability within the magnitude of their capacity. A scoring algorithm was estimated using a simple additive formula. The classification system demonstrated convergent validity against other measures of similar constructs and known-groups validity between different clinical subgroups.
This study produced a health state classifier system based on items impacted upon by MS, and demonstrated the potential to discriminate the health impact of the disease.
KeywordsHealth-related quality of life Utility Preference-based measures Multiple sclerosis
This work was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a scholarship from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Quebec.
- 3.Bombardier, C. H., Cunniffe, M., Wadhwani, R., Gibbons, L. E., Blake, K. D., & Kraft, G. H. (2008). The efficacy of telephone counseling for health promotion in people with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1849–1856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Moller, F., Poettgen, J., Broemel, F., Neuhaus, A., Daumer, M., & Heesen, C. (2011). HAGIL (Hamburg Vigil Study): A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study with modafinil for treatment of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 17, 1002–1009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Freedman, M. S., Bar-Or, A., Atkins, H. L., Karussis, D., Frassoni, F., Lazarus, H., et al. (2010). The therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation as a treatment for multiple sclerosis: Consensus report of the International MSCT Study Group. Multiple Sclerosis, 16, 503–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
- 24.Kind, P. (2005). Values and valuation in the measurement of HRQoL. In P. Fayers & D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (pp. 391–404). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
- 25.Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. (1996). Health utilities index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmaeconomics in clinicals trials (pp. 239–252). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Google Scholar
- 26.Feeny, D. (2005). Preference-based measures: Utility and quality-adjusted life years. In P. Fayers & D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (pp. 405–429). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
- 29.Berzon, R., Mauskopf, J. A., & Simeon, G. P. (1996). Choosing a health profile (descriptive) and/or a patient-preference (utility) measure for a clinical trial. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmaeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 375–379). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Google Scholar
- 41.Pickard, A. S., Shaw, J. W., Lin, H. W., Trask, P. C., Aaronson, N., Lee, T. A., et al. (2009). A patient-based utility measure of health for clinical trials of cancer therapy based on the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Value Health, 12, 977–988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.McKenna, S. P., Ratcliffe, J., Meads, D. M., & Brazier, J. E. (2008). Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 65.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Torrance, G. W., Keresteci, M. A., Casey, R. W., Rosner, A. J., Ryan, N., & Breton, M. C. (2004). Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Quality of Life Research, 13, 349–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Lin, F. J., Longworth, L., Pickard, A. S. (2013). Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Quality Life Research, 22(4), 853–874. Google Scholar
- 54.Freeman, J. A., Hobart, J. C., Langdon, D. W., & Thompson, A. J. (2000). Clinical appropriateness: A key factor in outcome measure selection: The 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 68, 150–156.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.Sullivan, M. J., Edgley, K., & Dehoux, E. (1990). A survey of multiple sclerosis: I. Perceived cognitive problems and compensatory strategy use. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 4, 99–105.Google Scholar
- 68.Andrich, D., Lyne, A., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2004). Rasch unidimensional measurement models (RUMM) 2020. Perth, Western Australia: Rumm Laboratory Pty Ltd. Google Scholar
- 71.Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- 72.Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.Google Scholar
- 74.Broome, H. (2012) The association between cognition, social functioning, physical impairment, and relationship factors in individuals with multiple sclerosis (pp. 1–195). The University of Hull.Google Scholar
- 90.Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health, 12, 1075–1083.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Food, U. S. (2009). Drug administration: Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74, 65132–65133.Google Scholar