Comparison of contemporaneous responses for EQ-5D-3L and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; A case for disease specific multi attribute utility instrument in cardiovascular conditions

Abstract Background The EQ-5D-3 L, a generic multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI), is widely employed to assist in economic evaluations in health care. The EQ-5D-3 L lacks sensitivity when used in conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although there are number of CVD specific quality...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of cardiology 2016
Main Authors: Kularatna, Sanjeewa, PhD, Byrnes, Joshua, PhD, Chan, Yih Kai, PhD, Carrington, Melinda, PhD, Stewart, Simon, PhD, FCSANZ, NFESC, FAHA, Scuffham, Paul A., PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cardiovascular
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background The EQ-5D-3 L, a generic multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI), is widely employed to assist in economic evaluations in health care. The EQ-5D-3 L lacks sensitivity when used in conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although there are number of CVD specific quality of life instruments, currently, there are no CVD specific MAUIs. The aim of this study is to investigate the discriminative ability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3 L and the Minnesota Living with Heart failure Questionnaire (MLHF), a CVD specific quality of life instrument in a group of heart failure patients. Methods The psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-3 L and the MLHF was assessed using data from a randomised trial for a heart failure management intervention. The two instruments were compared for discrimination, responsiveness and agreement. The severity groups were defined using New York Heart Association functional classes. Results The effect sizes for severe classes were generally similar showing good discrimination. The MLHF recorded better responsiveness between the time points than the EQ-5D-3 L which was indicated by higher effect sizes and standardised response means. The change in MLHF summary scores between the time points were significant ( p < 0.005; paired t -test). The overall agreement between the two measures were low. Conclusion The low correlation indicates that the two classification systems cover different aspects of health space. Comparison of CVD specific instruments with other generic MAUIs such as EQ-5D-3 L and AQOL-8D is recommended for further research.
ISSN:0167-5273
DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.030