Using the knee-specific Hughston Clinic Questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery: a comparison of psychometric properties

• Published in: Quality of life research 2011-11, Vol.20 (9), p.1437-1446
• Main Authors: Goodwin, Peter C., Ratcliffe, Julie, Morris, Julie, Morrissey, Matthew C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Arthritis; Arthroscopy; Arthroscopy - psychology; Female; Health care outcome assessment; Health status; Health surveys; Hospitals; Humans; INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION; Knee; Knee Injuries - physiopathology; Knee Injuries - psychology; Knee Injuries - surgery; Knees; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Menisci, Tibial - surgery; Mental health; Middle Aged; Patients; Physical therapy; Psychometrics; Public Health; Quality of life; Quality of Life Research; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Recovery (Medical); Retrospective Studies; Rheumatoid arthritis; Sociology; Surgery; Surveys and Questionnaires; United Kingdom; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0962-9343; 1573-2649
• DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9880-0

Purpose To compare the psychometric properties of the Hughston Clinic Questionnaire (HCQ), EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery. Methods A total of 84 participants (86% men; mean age 40) were recruited. The questionnaires were completed on average 5 days, 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery and compared for internal consistency, convergent validity, sensitivity to change and floor and ceiling effects. Results Internally, the HCQ was the most consistent instrument (α = 0.923) followed by the SF-6D and EQ-5D. The EQ-5D and SF-6D were moderately correlated with the HCQ (p = 0.499 and 0.394, respectively). Six weeks after surgery, the most sensitive measures were the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.04 and 0.99, respectively), at 6 months, with a smaller cohort (n = 42), again it was the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.03 and 1.04, respectively). The SF-6D demonstrated no ceiling or floor effect during the study; the HCQ demonstrated a ceiling affect for 5% of respondents at 6 months after surgery compared to 26% of respondents for the EQ-5D. Conclusion For this patient population, our findings indicated that the EQ-5D was more consistently responsive to change over time, as a utility index was better at distinguishing differences between groups and reflected the results of the joint-specific HCQ for knee recovery better than the SF-6D. It is therefore recommended that for similar populations, the EQ-5D is preferable to the SF-6D for utilisation alongside the HCQ.