Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with social phobia

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Michael Sonntag (1)
  Alexander Konnopka (1)
  Falk Leichsenring (2)
  Simone Salzer (3)
  Manfred E Beutel (4)
  Stephan Herpertz (5)
  Wolfgang Hiller (6)
  Jürgen Hoyer (7)
  Peter Joraschky (8)
  Bj?rn Nolting (5)
  Karin P?hlmann (8)
  Ulrich Stangier (9)
  Bernhard Strauss (10)
  Ulrike Willutzki (11)
  J?rg Wiltink (4)
  Eric Leibing (3)
  Hans-Helmut K?nig (1)
  
• 关键词：Social phobia ; EQ ; 5D ; Reliability ; Validity ; Responsiveness
• 刊名：Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：December 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：11
• 期：1
• 全文大小：423 KB
• 参考文献：1. Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, Konig HH: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. / Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010, 16:42-1. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  2. Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, Cieza A, Leidl R: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. / Qual Life Res 2012, 21:1205-216. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  3. K?nig HH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC: Validity of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with schizophrenic, schizotypal or delusional disorders. / Eur Psychiatry 2007, 22:177-87. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  4. K?nig HH, Born A, Günther O, Matschinger H, Heinrich S, Riedel-Heller SG, Angermeyer MC, Roick C: Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. / Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:47. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  5. Hedman E, Andersson E, Ljotsson B, Andersson G, Ruck C, Lindefors N: Cost-effectiveness of Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy vs. cognitive behavioral group therapy for social anxiety disorder: results from a randomized controlled trial. / Behav Res Ther 2011, 49:729-36. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  6. Sherbourne CD, Sullivan G, Craske MG, Roy-Byrne P, Golinelli D, Rose RD, Chavira DA, Bystritsky A, Stein MB: Functioning and disability levels in primary care out-patients with one or more anxiety disorders. / Psychol Med 2010, 40:2059-068. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  7. Saarni SI, Suvisaari J, Sintonen H, Pirkola S, Koskinen S, Aromaa A, Lonnqvist J: Impact of psychiatric disorders on health-related quality of life: general population survey. / Br J Psychiatry 2007, 190:326-32. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  8. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. / Health Econ 2006, 15:1229-236. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  9. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Wittchen HU, Jonsson B: The economic cost of brain disorders in Europe. / Eur J Neurol 2012, 19:155-62. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  10. Dimdi: / ICD-10-GM 2005 - international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems- German modification 10: revision, version 2005. K?ln: Deutscher ?rzte-Verlag; 2005.
  11. American Psychiatric Association: / Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders. 4th edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
  12. Magee WJ, Eaton WW, Wittchen HU, McGonagle KA, Kessler RC: Agoraphobia, simple phobia, and social phobia in the National Comorbidity Survey. / Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996, 53:159-68. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. DeWit DJ, Ogborne A, Offord DR, MacDonald K: Antecedents of the risk of recovery from DSM-III-R social phobia. / Psychol Med 1999, 29:569-82. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  14. Canton J, Scott KM, Glue P: Optimal treatment of social phobia: systematic review and meta-analysis. / Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2012, 8:203-15.
  15. Leichsenring F, Hoyer J, Beutel M, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Irle E, Joraschky P, Konig HH, de Liz TM, Nolting B, / et al.: The social phobia psychotherapy research network: the first multicenter randomized controlled trial of psychotherapy for social phobia: rationale, methods and patient characteristics. / Psychother Psychosom 2009, 78:35-1. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  16. Leichsenring F, Salzer S, Beutel ME, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Hoyer J, Huesing J, Joraschky P, Nolting B, Poehlmann K, / et al.: Psychodynamic therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. / Am J Psychiatry 2013, 170:759-67. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  17. Wittchen HU, Zaudig M, Fydrich T: / Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV. Goettingen: Hogrefe; 1997.
  18. Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG, Schneier FR, Davies SO, Liebowitz MR: Screening for social anxiety disorder in the clinical setting: using the Liebowitz social anxiety scale. / J Anxiety Disord 2002, 16:661-73. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  19. Brown PAD, David H: / Barlow TA: Anxiety disorders interview schedule (ADIS-IV) for DSM-IV: includes clinician manual; ADIS-IV client interview schedule (lifetime version); ADIS-IV client interview schedule (adult version). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1994.
  20. Group EQ: EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. / The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-08. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  21. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. / Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6:124-30. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  22. Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. / Med Care 1997, 35:1095-108. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  23. Liebowitz MR: Social phobia. / Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry 1987, 22:141-73.
  24. Turner SM, Beidel DC, Dancu CV, Stanley MA: An empirically derived inventory to measure social fears and anxiety: the social phobia and anxiety inventory. / Psychological Assessment 1989, 1:35-0. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  25. Fydrich T: SPAI - Social phobia and anxiety inventory. In / Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie. Edited by: Br?hler E, Schumacher J, Straus B. G?ttingen: Hogrefe; 2002.
  26. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W: Comparison of beck depression inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. / J Pers Assess 1996, 67:588-97. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  27. Luo X, Cappelleri JC: A practical guide on incorporating and evaluating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. / Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs 2008, 25:197-11. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  28. K?nig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC: Health status of the German population: results of a representative survey using the EuroQol questionnaire. / Gesundheitswesen 2005, 67:173-82. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  29. Walters SJ: / Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2009. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  30. Streiner DL, Norman GR: / Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th edition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  31. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. / Med Care 2003, 41:582-92.
  32. Sloan JA, Cella D, Hays RD: Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus. / J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:1217-219. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  33. Cohen J: / Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  34. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK: Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. / Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:70. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  35. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. / Qual Life Res 2003, 12:349-62. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  36. Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hodgkinson V, Evley R, Hardman JG: Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. / Value Health 2013, 16:124-32. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  37. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. / J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:459-68. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  38. Lehman LA, Velozo CA: Ability to detect change in patient function: responsiveness designs and methods of calculation. / J Hand Ther 2010, 23:361-70. quiz 371 k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  39. Deyo RA, Centor RM: Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. / J Chronic Dis 1986, 39:897-06. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  40. Fawcett T: An introduction to ROC analysis. / Pattern Recognit Lett 2006, 27:861-74. k" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Michael Sonntag (1)
  Alexander Konnopka (1)
  Falk Leichsenring (2)
  Simone Salzer (3)
  Manfred E Beutel (4)
  Stephan Herpertz (5)
  Wolfgang Hiller (6)
  Jürgen Hoyer (7)
  Peter Joraschky (8)
  Bj?rn Nolting (5)
  Karin P?hlmann (8)
  Ulrich Stangier (9)
  Bernhard Strauss (10)
  Ulrike Willutzki (11)
  J?rg Wiltink (4)
  Eric Leibing (3)
  Hans-Helmut K?nig (1)
  
  1. Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany
  2. Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Friedrichstr. 33, 35392, Giessen, Germany
  3. Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August-University of G?ttingen, von-Siebold-Str. 5, 37075, G?ttingen, Germany
  4. Clinic and Policlinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstra?e 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany
  5. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Alexandrinenstr 1-3, 44791, Bochum, Germany
  6. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Wallstr 3, 55122, Mainz, Germany
  7. Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Hohe Str. 53, 01187, Dresden, Germany
  8. Clinic of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
  9. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Varrentrappstr. 40-42, 60486, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  10. Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Stoystra?e 3, 07740, Jena, Germany
  11. Department of Clinical psychology and psychotherapy, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universit?tsstr. 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany
  
• ISSN：1477-7525

文摘

Objective The aim of the study was to analyse the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in patients with social phobia. Methods We used a sample of 445 patients with social phobia with five measurement points over a 30 month period. The discriminative ability of the EQ-5D was analysed by comparing the patients-responses with the general population and between different disease severity levels. For test-retest reliability we assessed the level of agreement in patients-responses over time, when there was no change in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). Construct validity was analysed by identifying correlations of the EQ-5D with more specific instruments. For responsiveness we compared the means of EQ VAS/EQ-5D index anchored on improved (deteriorated) health status and computed effect sizes as well as a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results Compared to the general population, patients with social phobia reported more problems in the dimensions “usual activities- “pain/discomfort- and “anxiety/depression-and less problems in “mobility-and “self-care- The EQ-5D was able to distinguish between different disease severity levels. The test-retest reliability was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient-gt;-.6). Correlations between the EQ-5D and other instruments were mostly small except for correlations with Beck Depression Inventory. The EQ-5D index seemed to be more responsive than the EQ VAS, but with only medium effect sizes (0.5-lt;?effect size-lt;-.8) in the British EQ-5D index and only significant in patients with improved health status. The ROC analysis revealed no significant results. Conclusions The EQ-5D was moderately reliable and responsive in patients with improved health status. Construct validity was limited. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN53517394