» Articles » PMID: 36650539

Impacts of the Preceding Cancer-specific Health-related Quality of Life Instruments on the Responses to the Subsequent EQ-5D-5L

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2023 Jan 17
PMID 36650539
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses.

Methods: We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups.

Results: The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was - 0.036 (95% CI - 0.065 to - 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003) and - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively.

Conclusions: Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire.

Citing Articles

Comparing the EQ-5D-5L and stroke impact scale 2.0 in stroke patients: an analysis of measurement properties.

Schmidt J, Duvel J, Elkenkamp S, Greiner W Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024; 22(1):45.

PMID: 38835023 PMC: 11151530. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-024-02252-z.

References
1.
McColl E, Eccles M, Rousseau N, Steen I, Parkin D, Grimshaw J . From the generic to the condition-specific?: Instrument order effects in Quality of Life Assessment. Med Care. 2003; 41(7):777-90. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200307000-00002. View

2.
Kieffer J, Verrips G, Hoogstraten J . Instrument-order effects: using the Oral Health Impact Profile 49 and the Short Form 12. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011; 119(1):69-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00796.x. View

3.
Lee S, Grant D . The effect of question order on self-rated general health status in a multilingual survey context. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 169(12):1525-30. PMC: 2727201. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwp070. View

4.
Barry M, Walker-Corkery E, Chang Y, Tyll L, Cherkin D, Fowler F . Measurement of overall and disease-specific health status: does the order of questionnaires make a difference?. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1995; 1(1):20-7. DOI: 10.1177/135581969600100105. View

5.
Hagiwara Y, Shiroiwa T, Taira N, Kawahara T, Konomura K, Noto S . Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020; 18(1):354. PMC: 7641825. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01611-w. View