失语症的具体结果还是一般结果?比较两种与健康相关的生活质量工具对失语症治疗的经济评价。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sally Zingelman, Sarah J Wallace, Joosup Kim, Sam Harvey, Miranda L Rose, John E Pierce, Kathleen L Bagot, Dominique A Cadilhac
{"title":"失语症的具体结果还是一般结果?比较两种与健康相关的生活质量工具对失语症治疗的经济评价。","authors":"Sally Zingelman, Sarah J Wallace, Joosup Kim, Sam Harvey, Miranda L Rose, John E Pierce, Kathleen L Bagot, Dominique A Cadilhac","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-04040-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Economic evaluations based on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) inform healthcare decisions. The generic EuroQol 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire, 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) permits conversion to utility values required for economic evaluations but is not validated for people with aphasia. The aphasia-specific Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g (SAQOL-39g) measures HRQOL, however, cannot be used to generate utility values. This study aimed to compare the performance of these two instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>HRQOL was rated at baseline and 12 weeks in participants of the Constraint Induced or Multi-Modal Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation (COMPARE) randomised controlled trial. We assessed: (1) distribution of self-rated HRQOL scores, (2) convergent validity between EQ-5D-3L (domains; utility values; visual analogue scale) and SAQOL-39g (domain scores; total mean scores) using Spearman's correlations, (3) Construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, and (4) discriminative ability of converted EQ-5D-3L utilities in measuring compromised HRQOL (SAQOL-39g scores ≤ 4).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n = 201 baseline, n = 190 12 weeks) completed both instruments (69% male, median age 63.6 years, median time since stroke 2.5 years). Ceiling effects were high for the EQ-5D-3L at baseline (45-79%) versus the SAQOL-39g (0-6%). Convergent validity between the SAQOL-39g communication domain and the EQ-5D-3L (r = 0.04-0.28) was weak at both time points. Factor analysis revealed distinct underlying constructs between instruments. EQ-5D-3L utility scores demonstrated reasonable performance (0.80 baseline; 0.78 12-weeks) in measuring poor HRQOL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that EQ-5D-3L use in economic evaluations including people with aphasia requires caution. Alternative HRQOL instruments require evaluation to ensure fair prioritisation of aphasia treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aphasia-specific or generic outcomes? a comparison of two health-related quality of life instruments for economic evaluations of aphasia treatments.\",\"authors\":\"Sally Zingelman, Sarah J Wallace, Joosup Kim, Sam Harvey, Miranda L Rose, John E Pierce, Kathleen L Bagot, Dominique A Cadilhac\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-025-04040-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Economic evaluations based on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) inform healthcare decisions. The generic EuroQol 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire, 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) permits conversion to utility values required for economic evaluations but is not validated for people with aphasia. The aphasia-specific Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g (SAQOL-39g) measures HRQOL, however, cannot be used to generate utility values. This study aimed to compare the performance of these two instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>HRQOL was rated at baseline and 12 weeks in participants of the Constraint Induced or Multi-Modal Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation (COMPARE) randomised controlled trial. We assessed: (1) distribution of self-rated HRQOL scores, (2) convergent validity between EQ-5D-3L (domains; utility values; visual analogue scale) and SAQOL-39g (domain scores; total mean scores) using Spearman's correlations, (3) Construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, and (4) discriminative ability of converted EQ-5D-3L utilities in measuring compromised HRQOL (SAQOL-39g scores ≤ 4).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n = 201 baseline, n = 190 12 weeks) completed both instruments (69% male, median age 63.6 years, median time since stroke 2.5 years). Ceiling effects were high for the EQ-5D-3L at baseline (45-79%) versus the SAQOL-39g (0-6%). Convergent validity between the SAQOL-39g communication domain and the EQ-5D-3L (r = 0.04-0.28) was weak at both time points. Factor analysis revealed distinct underlying constructs between instruments. EQ-5D-3L utility scores demonstrated reasonable performance (0.80 baseline; 0.78 12-weeks) in measuring poor HRQOL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that EQ-5D-3L use in economic evaluations including people with aphasia requires caution. Alternative HRQOL instruments require evaluation to ensure fair prioritisation of aphasia treatments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-04040-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-04040-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:基于健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)的经济评价为医疗保健决策提供信息。通用EuroQol 5维健康问卷,3级(EQ-5D-3L)允许转换为经济评估所需的效用值,但未对失语症患者进行验证。然而,失语特异性卒中和失语生活质量量表-39g (SAQOL-39g)测量HRQOL,不能用于产生效用值。本研究旨在比较这两种仪器的性能。方法:对约束诱导或多模式个性化失语康复(COMPARE)随机对照试验参与者在基线和12周时的HRQOL进行评分。我们评估:(1)自评HRQOL分数的分布;(2)EQ-5D-3L(域)之间的收敛效度;效用值;视觉模拟量表)和SAQOL-39g(领域评分;(3)通过探索性因子分析构建效度,以及(4)转换EQ-5D-3L效用在测量受损HRQOL (SAQOL-39g评分≤4)中的判别能力。结果:参与者(基线n = 201, 12周n = 190)完成了两种工具(69%为男性,中位年龄63.6岁,中风后中位时间2.5年)。基线时EQ-5D-3L的上限效应较高(45-79%),而SAQOL-39g的上限效应为0-6%。SAQOL-39g通信域与EQ-5D-3L的收敛效度在两个时间点均较弱(r = 0.04-0.28)。因子分析揭示了不同仪器之间不同的潜在结构。EQ-5D-3L效用评分显示性能合理(基线0.80;0.78(12周)衡量HRQOL差。结论:我们的研究结果表明EQ-5D-3L在包括失语症患者在内的经济评估中需要谨慎使用。其他HRQOL工具需要评估,以确保失语症治疗的公平优先次序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aphasia-specific or generic outcomes? a comparison of two health-related quality of life instruments for economic evaluations of aphasia treatments.

Purpose: Economic evaluations based on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) inform healthcare decisions. The generic EuroQol 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire, 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) permits conversion to utility values required for economic evaluations but is not validated for people with aphasia. The aphasia-specific Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g (SAQOL-39g) measures HRQOL, however, cannot be used to generate utility values. This study aimed to compare the performance of these two instruments.

Methods: HRQOL was rated at baseline and 12 weeks in participants of the Constraint Induced or Multi-Modal Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation (COMPARE) randomised controlled trial. We assessed: (1) distribution of self-rated HRQOL scores, (2) convergent validity between EQ-5D-3L (domains; utility values; visual analogue scale) and SAQOL-39g (domain scores; total mean scores) using Spearman's correlations, (3) Construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, and (4) discriminative ability of converted EQ-5D-3L utilities in measuring compromised HRQOL (SAQOL-39g scores ≤ 4).

Results: Participants (n = 201 baseline, n = 190 12 weeks) completed both instruments (69% male, median age 63.6 years, median time since stroke 2.5 years). Ceiling effects were high for the EQ-5D-3L at baseline (45-79%) versus the SAQOL-39g (0-6%). Convergent validity between the SAQOL-39g communication domain and the EQ-5D-3L (r = 0.04-0.28) was weak at both time points. Factor analysis revealed distinct underlying constructs between instruments. EQ-5D-3L utility scores demonstrated reasonable performance (0.80 baseline; 0.78 12-weeks) in measuring poor HRQOL.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that EQ-5D-3L use in economic evaluations including people with aphasia requires caution. Alternative HRQOL instruments require evaluation to ensure fair prioritisation of aphasia treatments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信