» Articles » PMID: 18304340

EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale and Utility Index Values in Individuals with Diabetes and at Risk for Diabetes: Findings from the Study to Help Improve Early Evaluation and Management of Risk Factors Leading to Diabetes (SHIELD)

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2008 Feb 29
PMID 18304340
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The EQ-5D was used to compare burden experienced by respondents with diabetes and those at risk for diabetes.

Methods: A survey including the EQ-5D was mailed to individuals with self-reported diabetes, as well as those without diabetes but with the following risk factors (RFs): (1) abdominal obesity, (2) body mass index > or = 28 kg/m2, (3) dyslipidemia, (4) hypertension, and (5) cardiovascular disease. Non-diabetes respondents were combined into 0-2 RFs and 3-5 RFs. Mean EQ-5D scores were compared across groups using analysis of variance. Multivariable linear regression modeling identified factors affecting respondents' EQ-5D scores.

Results: Complete responses were available from >75% of each cohort. Mean EQ-5D index scores were significantly lower for respondents with type 2 diabetes and 3-5 RFs (0.778 and 0.792, respectively) than for those with 0-2 RFs (0.870, p < 0.001 for each); score for respondents with type 2 diabetes was also significantly lower than for those with 3-5 RFs (p < 0.001). Similar patterns were seen for visual analog scale (VAS). For both VAS and index scores, after adjusting for other characteristics, respondents reported decreasing EQ-5D scores as status moved from low to high risk (-6.49 for VAS score and -0.045 for index score) to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (-9.75 for VAS score and -0.054 for index score; p < 0.001 vs. 0-2 RFs for all).

Conclusion: High-risk and type 2 diabetes groups had similar EQ-5D scores, and both were substantially lower than in low-risk respondents.

Citing Articles

A web step-based digital solution's impact on physical, cognitive and psychosocial functioning of community-dwelling older adults: A mixed methods randomized and controlled trial.

Silva A, Martins A, Andias R, Nery E, Silva T, Ribeiro O Internet Interv. 2024; 38:100766.

PMID: 39280041 PMC: 11393595. DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2024.100766.


Health state utility values of type 2 diabetes mellitus and related complications: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Wang Y, Xu Y, Shan H, Pan H, Chen J, Yang J Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024; 22(1):74.

PMID: 39244536 PMC: 11380328. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-024-02288-1.


How Financial Beliefs and Behaviors Influence the Financial Health of Individuals Struggling with Opioid Use Disorder.

Langabeer J, Vega F, Cardenas-Turanzas M, Cohen A, Lalani K, Champagne-Langabeer T Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38785885 PMC: 11117791. DOI: 10.3390/bs14050394.


Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Older Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

Volcansek S, Lunder M, Janez A Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(15).

PMID: 37570394 PMC: 10418676. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11152154.


Immunosuppressant drugs and quality-of-life outcomes in kidney transplant recipients: An international cohort study (EU-TRAIN).

Girardin F, Nicolet A, Bestard O, Lefaucheur C, Budde K, Halleck F Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14:1040584.

PMID: 37180729 PMC: 10174308. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1040584.


References
1.
Hurst N, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A . Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997; 36(5):551-9. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.5.551. View

2.
Anderson R, Fitzgerald J, Wisdom K, Davis W, HISS R . A comparison of global versus disease-specific quality-of-life measures in patients with NIDDM. Diabetes Care. 1997; 20(3):299-305. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.20.3.299. View

3.
. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2007. Diabetes Care. 2006; 30 Suppl 1:S4-S41. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-S004. View

4.
Sullivan P, Ghushchyan V, Wyatt H, Wu E, Hill J . Impact of cardiometabolic risk factor clusters on health-related quality of life in the U.S. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007; 15(2):511-21. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2007.580. View

5.
Wee H, Machin D, Loke W, Li S, Cheung Y, Luo N . Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health. 2007; 10(4):256-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00174.x. View