A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures

Authors: Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Lloyd Jones M, Paisley S, O'Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 18 Issue: 34

Publication date: May 2014

DOI: 10.3310/hta18340

Citation:

Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al.A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(34)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (6.3 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The online version of this issue is currently unavailable.
The PDF version is available from the downloads section of this page.

Abstract

Background

Generic preference-based measures of health like the EQ-5D and SF-6D(®) are increasingly being used in economic evaluation and outcome assessment. However, there are concerns as to whether or not these generic measures are appropriate for use in people with mental health problems.

Objectives

The EQ-5D and SF-36(®) (including its derivatives the SF-12(®) and SF-6D) were assessed using the psychometric criteria of validity and responsiveness using quantitative and qualitative methods. Another aim was to estimate mapping functions between the EQ-5D and SF-6D and condition-specific measures, where appropriate.

Design

Four studies were undertaken to examine the appropriateness of the measures: (1) a systematic review of quantitative evidence on validity and responsiveness; (2) a further quantitative assessment of these criteria using existing data sets; (3) a review of qualitative research on the quality of life of people with mental health problems; and (4) qualitative semistructured interviews of people with a full range of problems. A fifth study estimated mapping functions between mental health-specific measures and the EQ-5D and SF-6D.

Setting

A choice of venue was offered for the interviews including the participant's own home, a room at the university or a centre frequently used by mental health services.

Participants

The interviews were undertaken with 19 people with a broad range of mental health problems at varying levels of severity.

Main outcome measures

The reviews included the EQ-5D and SF-36 (and the SF-12 and SF-6D). The psychometric analysis included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Results

(1) and (2) The EQ-5D and SF-36 achieved an adequate level of performance in depression, and to some extent in anxiety and personality disorder. Results from the psychometric analyses in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been more mixed. (3) A framework analysis of 13 studies identified six major themes. (4) The interview data fitted the themes from the review well and resulted in minor modifications to the themes. The final set of themes comprised: well-being and ill-being; control, autonomy and choice; self-perception; belonging; activity; hope and hopelessness; and physical health.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D and SF-36 achieved mixed results in the quantitative testing against psychometric criteria. The qualitative analysis suggests this is because they provide a very limited coverage of themes identified by people with mental health problems. Recommendations for future work include the development of new preference-based measures in mental health that are based on, or substantially revise, an existing measure.

Funding

The Medical Research Council.

Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.