Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS
Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Quality of life research 2005-05, Vol.14 (4), p.971-980 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 980 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 971 |
| container_title | Quality of life research |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Stavem, Knut Frøland, Stig S Hellum, Kjell B |
| description | Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. Methods: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. Results: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D - 0.86, SF-6D - 0.73, and EQ-5D Index - 0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (π = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. Conclusions: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11136-004-3211-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68071562</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4039360</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4039360</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5226c8383e1dcddae5d100e6913746bb09c932a95378629194d838712b6246fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U1LAzEQBuAgiq0fP0AQCR48Gc0k2WRzrK3agqBS69GQblLc0u7WZIv4783SouDFUw7zzJCZF6EToFdAqbqOAMAloVQQzgCI2kFdyBQnTAq9i7pUS0Y0F7yDDmKcU0pzTdk-6oCkAnItuuitXy9XNpSxrnA9w0_Bz3zwVeHJjY3e4UlTLsqm9LGtNu8eQza4xLfPJBtgWzk8viNygMsKP9mkqibiz7J5x8PR63VvNBgfob2ZXUR_vH0P0eTu9qU_JA-P96N-74EUXOUNyRiTRc5z7sEVzlmfubSglxq4EnI6pbrQnFmdJS2ZBi1c0grYVDIhZ44foovN3FWoP9Y-NmZZxsIvFrby9ToamVMFmWT_QgZMaqVkgud_4LxehyotYfL2pyxnKiHYoCLUMabbmVUolzZ8GaCmjchsIjIpItNGZNqes-3g9XTp3W_HNpMETjdgHps6_NQF5ZpLyr8BnjiP7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>883832827</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Stavem, Knut ; Frøland, Stig S ; Hellum, Kjell B</creator><creatorcontrib>Stavem, Knut ; Frøland, Stig S ; Hellum, Kjell B</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. Methods: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. Results: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D - 0.86, SF-6D - 0.73, and EQ-5D Index - 0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (π = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. Conclusions: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-3211-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16041894</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Springer</publisher><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome ; Adult ; AIDS ; Diagnostic indices ; Epilepsy ; Female ; Health status ; Health surveys ; HIV ; HIV Seropositivity ; Human immunodeficiency virus ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Norway ; Preference utilitarianism ; Preventive medicine ; Prospective Studies ; Quality of Life ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sickness Impact Profile ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Tariffs</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2005-05, Vol.14 (4), p.971-980</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 Springer</rights><rights>Springer 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5226c8383e1dcddae5d100e6913746bb09c932a95378629194d838712b6246fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5226c8383e1dcddae5d100e6913746bb09c932a95378629194d838712b6246fd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4039360$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4039360$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16041894$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stavem, Knut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frøland, Stig S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellum, Kjell B</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. Methods: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. Results: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D - 0.86, SF-6D - 0.73, and EQ-5D Index - 0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (π = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. Conclusions: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.</description><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>AIDS</subject><subject>Diagnostic indices</subject><subject>Epilepsy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>HIV Seropositivity</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Norway</subject><subject>Preference utilitarianism</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sickness Impact Profile</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U1LAzEQBuAgiq0fP0AQCR48Gc0k2WRzrK3agqBS69GQblLc0u7WZIv4783SouDFUw7zzJCZF6EToFdAqbqOAMAloVQQzgCI2kFdyBQnTAq9i7pUS0Y0F7yDDmKcU0pzTdk-6oCkAnItuuitXy9XNpSxrnA9w0_Bz3zwVeHJjY3e4UlTLsqm9LGtNu8eQza4xLfPJBtgWzk8viNygMsKP9mkqibiz7J5x8PR63VvNBgfob2ZXUR_vH0P0eTu9qU_JA-P96N-74EUXOUNyRiTRc5z7sEVzlmfubSglxq4EnI6pbrQnFmdJS2ZBi1c0grYVDIhZ44foovN3FWoP9Y-NmZZxsIvFrby9ToamVMFmWT_QgZMaqVkgud_4LxehyotYfL2pyxnKiHYoCLUMabbmVUolzZ8GaCmjchsIjIpItNGZNqes-3g9XTp3W_HNpMETjdgHps6_NQF5ZpLyr8BnjiP7g</recordid><startdate>20050501</startdate><enddate>20050501</enddate><creator>Stavem, Knut</creator><creator>Frøland, Stig S</creator><creator>Hellum, Kjell B</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050501</creationdate><title>Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS</title><author>Stavem, Knut ; Frøland, Stig S ; Hellum, Kjell B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5226c8383e1dcddae5d100e6913746bb09c932a95378629194d838712b6246fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>AIDS</topic><topic>Diagnostic indices</topic><topic>Epilepsy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>HIV Seropositivity</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Norway</topic><topic>Preference utilitarianism</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sickness Impact Profile</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stavem, Knut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frøland, Stig S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellum, Kjell B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stavem, Knut</au><au>Frøland, Stig S</au><au>Hellum, Kjell B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2005-05-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>971</spage><epage>980</epage><pages>971-980</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. Methods: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. Results: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D - 0.86, SF-6D - 0.73, and EQ-5D Index - 0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (π = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. Conclusions: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>16041894</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-004-3211-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0962-9343 |
| ispartof | Quality of life research, 2005-05, Vol.14 (4), p.971-980 |
| issn | 0962-9343 1573-2649 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68071562 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Acquired immune deficiency syndrome Adult AIDS Diagnostic indices Epilepsy Female Health status Health surveys HIV HIV Seropositivity Human immunodeficiency virus Humans Male Middle Aged Norway Preference utilitarianism Preventive medicine Prospective Studies Quality of Life Reproducibility of Results Sickness Impact Profile Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Tariffs |
| title | Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in Patients with HIV/AIDS |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A42%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Preference-Based%20Utilities%20of%20the%2015D,%20EQ-5D%20and%20SF-6D%20in%20Patients%20with%20HIV/AIDS&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Stavem,%20Knut&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=971&rft.epage=980&rft.pages=971-980&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-004-3211-7&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4039360%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=883832827&rft_id=info:pmid/16041894&rft_jstor_id=4039360&rfr_iscdi=true |