Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2014
Yan Feng1, David Parkin2, Nancy Devlin1
1Office of Health Economics, 7th Floor, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK
2Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK

Tóm tắt

Abstract Objectives The study aims to increase knowledge about the performance of the EuroQol-visual analogue scales (EQ-VAS) in the UK NHS patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme, which covers groin hernia, hip and knee replacement and varicose vein surgery, and make suggestions for improved collection, coding and analysis of data. Methods Four hundred scanned images of matched before-and-after EQ-VAS PROMs responses were selected at random. These were classified according to the different ways in which they were completed. Patient-level PROMs programme data linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for all patients from April 2009 to February 2011 were used to analyse the relationship between the EQ-VAS and the EQ-5D profile, index-weighted profile and condition-specific instruments. The linked PROMs and HES data comprise 331,951 anonymised patient records. Results A large majority (95 %) of EQ-VAS responses were completed in an unambiguous way, but only a minority (45 %) conformed strictly to the instructions given, posing challenges for data coding. The EQ-VAS data have a predictable and consistent relationship with the EQ-5D profile, although the correlations between the EQ-VAS and other measures of patient-reported health, both before and after surgery and in the change between them, are weak. Conclusions EQ-VAS data might be improved by providing better guidance on collection and coding. It is argued that the observed differences in results from EQ-VAS and other measures of health reflect the fact that it measures a broader underlying construct of health, arguably providing a means of summarising overall health that is closer to the patient’s perspective.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

DH (Department of Health, UK). (2010). Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: Stationery Office.

IC (NHS Information Centre). (2011). Finalised Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England. Pre- and post-operative data. Experimental statistics. London: Health and Social Care Information Centre. Available at http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1583. Apr 2009–Mar 2010 (Accessed 13 April 2012).

Devlin, N., & Appleby, J. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMs: Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics.

EuroQol Group. (2011). EQ-5D-5L User Guide. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group. Available at http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html. (Accessed 12 Apr 2012).

Devlin, N., Parkin, D., & Browne, J. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes in the NHS: New methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Economics, 19(8), 886–905.

Paulsen, A., Pedersen, A. B., Overgaard, S., & Roos, E. M. (2012). Feasibility of 4 patient-reported outcome measures in a registry setting: A cross-sectional study of 6,000 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthopaedica, 83(4), 321–327.

Hayes, M. H. S., & Patterson, D. G. (1921). Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychology Bulletin, 18, 98–99.

Freyd, M. (1923). The graphic rating scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14(2), 83–102.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Boring, E. G. (Eds.). (1965). A source book in the history of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aitken, R. C. B. (1969). Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proceedings of the Royal Society Medicine, 62(10), 989–993.

McCormack, H., Horne, D., & Sheather, S. (1988). Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychological Medicine, 18, 1007–1019.

Wewers, M., & Lowe, N. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health, 13(4), 227–236.

Priestman, T. J., & Baum, M. (1976). Evaluation of quality of life in patients receiving treatment for advanced breast cancer. The Lancet, 1(7965), 899–900.

Boer, A. G., van Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., et al. (2004). Is a single item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311–320.

Streiner, D., & Norman, G. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.

Torrance, G., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 329–334.

Busschbach, J., Hessing, D., & de Charro, F. (2005). Chapter 7: Observations on one hundred students filling in the EuroQol questionnaire. In Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (eds). EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer.

Nyren, O. (1988). Visual analogue scale. In M. Hersen & A. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioural assessment techniques. New York: Pergammon Press.

EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol- a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–203.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (Eds.). (2005). EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer.

Whynes, D., & The TOMBOLA Group. (2008). Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 94–103.

Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A., et al. (2005). Should patients have a greater role in valuating health states? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(4), 201–208.

Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics, 18(3), 363–372.

Parkin, D., Rice, N., & Devlin, N. (2010). Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: Does the use of value set bias inference? Medical Decision Making, 30(5), 556–565.

Parkin, D., Feng, Y., & Devlin, N. (2013). What determines the shape of an EQ-5D index distribution? Paper presented at the Health Economics Study Group meeting, Exeter University. Jan 2013.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of a new five level version of the EQ-5D: The EQ-5D-5L. Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.

Hardman, G., Kind, P., & Macran, S. (2002). Living with a VASectomy: Exploring the relationship between EQ-5D responses and the EQ-5D Vas? Paper presented at the 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, York. Available at http://www.euroqol.org/uploads/media/Proc02York24Hardman.pdf. (Accessed 6 Mar 2012).

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.

Fox-Rushby, J., & Selai, C. (2003). What concepts does the EQ-5D measure? Intentions and interpretations. In R. Brooks, R. Rabin, & F. de Charro (Eds.), The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publications.

Health, Quality. (2010). Internal document. Chesterfield: Quality Health.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả