Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16788
Title: Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation
Austin Authors: Hannan, Liam M ;Whitehurst, David GT;Bryan, Stirling;Road, Jeremy D;McDonald, Christine F ;Berlowitz, David J ;Howard, Mark E 
Affiliation: Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Victorian Respiratory Support Service, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Provincial Respiratory Outreach Program, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Issue Date: Jun-2017
metadata.dc.date: 2017-03-02
Publication information: Quality of Life Research 2017; 26(6): 1493-1505
Abstract: PURPOSE: To explore the influence of descriptive differences in items evaluating mobility on index scores generated from two generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. METHODS: The study examined cross-sectional data from a postal survey of individuals receiving assisted ventilation in two state/province-wide home mechanical ventilation services, one in British Columbia, Canada and the other in Victoria, Australia. The Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D) and the EQ-5D-5L were included in the data collection. Graphical illustrations, descriptive statistics, and measures of agreement [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots] were examined using index scores derived from both instruments. Analyses were performed on the full sample as well as subgroups defined according to respondents' self-reported ability to walk. RESULTS: Of 868 individuals receiving assisted ventilation, 481 (55.4%) completed the questionnaire. Mean index scores were 0.581 (AQoL-8D) and 0.566 (EQ-5D-5L) with 'moderate' agreement demonstrated between the two instruments (ICC = 0.642). One hundred fifty-nine (33.1%) reported level 5 ('I am unable to walk about') on the EQ-5D-5L Mobility item. The walking status of respondents had a marked influence on the comparability of index scores, with a larger mean difference (0.206) and 'slight' agreement (ICC = 0.386) observed when the non-ambulant subgroup was evaluated separately. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that between-measure discrepancies between preference-based HRQoL instruments are related in part to the framing of mobility-related items. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the responsiveness of preference-based HRQoL instruments in cohorts that include non-ambulant individuals.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16788
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1510-z
ORCID: 0000-0003-2543-8722
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28255744
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.