Juliana Schmidt, Juliane Andrea Düvel, Svenja Elkenkamp, Wolfgang Greiner
{"title":"比较脑卒中患者的 EQ-5D-5L 和脑卒中影响量表 2.0：测量特性分析。","authors":"Juliana Schmidt, Juliane Andrea Düvel, Svenja Elkenkamp, Wolfgang Greiner","doi":"10.1186/s12955-024-02252-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke has evolved to become a chronic disease and a major public health challenge. To adequately capture the full disease burden of stroke patients, the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and thus the performance of respective measures is increasingly relevant. The aim of this analysis was to compare the measurement properties of two self-report instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data used for the analysis was derived from a quasi-experimental case management study for mildly to moderately affected incident stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients aged ≥ 18 in Germany. Data was collected patient-individually at 3, 6 and 12 months after initial stroke. The EQ-5D-5L and SIS 2.0 were compared in terms of feasibility, ceiling and floor effects, responsiveness and known-groups validity (Kruskal-Wallis H and Wilcoxon rank-sum test).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A response for all three follow-ups is available for n = 855 patients. The feasibility of the EQ-5D-5L is determined as good (completion rate: 96.4-96.6%, ≥ one item missing: 3.2 - 3.3%), whereas the SIS 2.0 is moderately feasible (overall completion rate: 44.9-46.1%, ≥ one item missing in domains: 4.7 - 28.7%). The SIS 2.0 shows substantial ceiling effects in comparable domains (physical function: 10.4 - 13%, others: 3.5-31.3%) which are mainly larger than ceiling effects in the EQ-5D-5L index (17.1-21.5%). In terms of responsiveness, the EQ-5D-5L shows small to moderate change while the SIS 2.0 presents with moderate to large responsiveness. The EQ-5D-5L index, mobility, usual activities and Visual Analogue Scale show known-groups validity (p < 0.05). Content-related domains of the SIS 2.0 show known-groups validity as well (p < 0.05). However, it is compromised in the emotion domain in both measures (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EQ-5D-5L seems to be slightly more suitable for this cohort. Nonetheless, the results of both measures indicate limited suitability for TIA patients. Large-scale studies concerning responsiveness and known-groups validity are encouraged.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, retrospective registration on 21.09.2022.</p><p><strong>Registration id: </strong>DRKS00030297.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"22 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the EQ-5D-5L and stroke impact scale 2.0 in stroke patients: an analysis of measurement properties.\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Schmidt, Juliane Andrea Düvel, Svenja Elkenkamp, Wolfgang Greiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12955-024-02252-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke has evolved to become a chronic disease and a major public health challenge. To adequately capture the full disease burden of stroke patients, the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and thus the performance of respective measures is increasingly relevant. The aim of this analysis was to compare the measurement properties of two self-report instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data used for the analysis was derived from a quasi-experimental case management study for mildly to moderately affected incident stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients aged ≥ 18 in Germany. Data was collected patient-individually at 3, 6 and 12 months after initial stroke. The EQ-5D-5L and SIS 2.0 were compared in terms of feasibility, ceiling and floor effects, responsiveness and known-groups validity (Kruskal-Wallis H and Wilcoxon rank-sum test).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A response for all three follow-ups is available for n = 855 patients. The feasibility of the EQ-5D-5L is determined as good (completion rate: 96.4-96.6%, ≥ one item missing: 3.2 - 3.3%), whereas the SIS 2.0 is moderately feasible (overall completion rate: 44.9-46.1%, ≥ one item missing in domains: 4.7 - 28.7%). The SIS 2.0 shows substantial ceiling effects in comparable domains (physical function: 10.4 - 13%, others: 3.5-31.3%) which are mainly larger than ceiling effects in the EQ-5D-5L index (17.1-21.5%). In terms of responsiveness, the EQ-5D-5L shows small to moderate change while the SIS 2.0 presents with moderate to large responsiveness. The EQ-5D-5L index, mobility, usual activities and Visual Analogue Scale show known-groups validity (p < 0.05). Content-related domains of the SIS 2.0 show known-groups validity as well (p < 0.05). However, it is compromised in the emotion domain in both measures (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EQ-5D-5L seems to be slightly more suitable for this cohort. Nonetheless, the results of both measures indicate limited suitability for TIA patients. Large-scale studies concerning responsiveness and known-groups validity are encouraged.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, retrospective registration on 21.09.2022.</p><p><strong>Registration id: </strong>DRKS00030297.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02252-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02252-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing the EQ-5D-5L and stroke impact scale 2.0 in stroke patients: an analysis of measurement properties.
Background: Stroke has evolved to become a chronic disease and a major public health challenge. To adequately capture the full disease burden of stroke patients, the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and thus the performance of respective measures is increasingly relevant. The aim of this analysis was to compare the measurement properties of two self-report instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0.
Methods: The data used for the analysis was derived from a quasi-experimental case management study for mildly to moderately affected incident stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients aged ≥ 18 in Germany. Data was collected patient-individually at 3, 6 and 12 months after initial stroke. The EQ-5D-5L and SIS 2.0 were compared in terms of feasibility, ceiling and floor effects, responsiveness and known-groups validity (Kruskal-Wallis H and Wilcoxon rank-sum test).
Results: A response for all three follow-ups is available for n = 855 patients. The feasibility of the EQ-5D-5L is determined as good (completion rate: 96.4-96.6%, ≥ one item missing: 3.2 - 3.3%), whereas the SIS 2.0 is moderately feasible (overall completion rate: 44.9-46.1%, ≥ one item missing in domains: 4.7 - 28.7%). The SIS 2.0 shows substantial ceiling effects in comparable domains (physical function: 10.4 - 13%, others: 3.5-31.3%) which are mainly larger than ceiling effects in the EQ-5D-5L index (17.1-21.5%). In terms of responsiveness, the EQ-5D-5L shows small to moderate change while the SIS 2.0 presents with moderate to large responsiveness. The EQ-5D-5L index, mobility, usual activities and Visual Analogue Scale show known-groups validity (p < 0.05). Content-related domains of the SIS 2.0 show known-groups validity as well (p < 0.05). However, it is compromised in the emotion domain in both measures (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The EQ-5D-5L seems to be slightly more suitable for this cohort. Nonetheless, the results of both measures indicate limited suitability for TIA patients. Large-scale studies concerning responsiveness and known-groups validity are encouraged.
Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, retrospective registration on 21.09.2022.
期刊介绍：
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
