Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A cross-sectional survey (n = 878) was conducted to compare the psychometric properties of three preference-based and one nonpreference-based health-related quality of life measures among healthy subjects with and without treatment for dyslipidemia and/or hypertension and patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). All measures were stable over a 3 to 6 week period. Compared to the Time Trade-off (TTO) and the Standard Gamble (SG), the Rating Scale (RS) correlated with the SF-36 Health Survey most highly. In contrast to the SF-36 General Health Perception (GHP), the SF-36 Physical Component scale and the RS, the TTO and SG were less able to discriminate CHD patients with various levels of physical disability. Only the SF-36 GHP subscale and the RS were able to differentiate healthy participants from participants receiving dyslipidemia and/or hypertension treatment. Neither the SF-36 Physical or Mental Component scales were able to discriminate these two groups. Overall, these results suggest that unlike the RS, the TTO and the SG, as administered in this study, may not be sufficiently sensitive to measure the impact of primary cardiovascular disease prevention strategies on the health-related quality of life of the participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Wein-stein M (for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine). The role of cost effectiveness analysis in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH and Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van-Zanten SJO, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 140: 1441–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Krahn M, Naylor CD, Basinski A, Detsky AS. Com-parison of an aggressive (U.S.) and a less aggressive (Canadian) policy for cholesterol screening and treat-ment. Ann Int Med 1991; 115: 248–255.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Drummond MF, Heyse J, Cook J, McGuire A. Selec-tion of end points in economic evaluations of coronary-heart-disease interventions. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 184–190.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claidication. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome mea-sure for primary care. BMJ 1992; 305: 160–164.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a pa-tient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and re-liability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 40–66.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JFR. The validity and relative precision of MOS short-and long-form health status and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 1992; 30: MS253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Fihn SD. Monitoring the quality of life of patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol1994; 74: 1240–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lawrence WF, Fryback DG, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BEK. Health status and hypertension: A popu-lation-based study. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(11): 1239–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (for the Panel on Cost-E.ectiveness in Health and Medicine). Recommendations on the panel on cost-e.ectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276(15): 1253–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Williams JI, Wood-Daiphinee S. Assessing quality of life: measures and utility. In: Mosteller F, Falotico-Taylor J, eds, Monograph of the Council of Health Care Technology: Quality of life and technology as-sessment. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1989: 65–115.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nease RF, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT et al. Variation in patients utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1995; 273(15): 1185–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nichol G, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, Naylor CD. The relationship between cardiac functional ca-pacity and patients' symptom-specific utilities for an-gina: some findings and methodologic lessons. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chen AY, Daley J, Thibailt GE. Angina patients' ratings of current health and health without angina: associations with severity of angina and comorbidity. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 169–177.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O'Brien BJ, Buxton MJ, Patterson DL. Relationship between functional status and health-related quality-of-life after myocardial infarction. Med Care 1993; 31: 950–955.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas GA et al. Functional status vs. utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care 1991; 29: 1153–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Statistics Canada. Life Tables, Canada and Provinces, 1990–1992. Catalog no. 84–537. Ottawa, Canada: Health Statistics Division, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumenta-tion. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University CHE-PA Working Paper Series, 1990.

  23. Morss SE, Lenert LA, Faistmann WO. The side e.ects of anti-psychotic drugs and patients' quality of life: patient education and preference assessment with computers and multimedia. In: Proceeding of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wood Daiphinee S, Gaithier L, Gankek B, Magnan L, Pierre U. Readying a US measure of health status, the SF-36, for use in Canada. Clin Invest Med 1997; 20(4): 224–238.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: Medical Outcomes Trust, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A user's manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goldman L, Cook EF, Mitchell N, Flatley M, Sherman H, Cohn PF. Pitfalls in the serial assessment of cardiac functional status. How a reduction in 'ordinary' activity may reduce the apparent degree of cardiac compromise and give a misleading impression of 'improvement'. J Chron Dis 1982; 35: 763–771.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Goldman L, Hashimoto B, Cook F, Loscalzo A. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation 1981; 64: 1227–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gibelin P, Dadoun-Dybal M, Morand P. Classification fonctionnelle de l'insurasance cardiaque. Arch Mal Coeur 1993; 86(II): 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979; 86(2): 420–428.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(5): 459–471.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: com-parison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 315–329.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent e.ect on a cost-e.ectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(5): 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bult JR, Bosh JL, Hunink MGM. Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 226–233.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992; 30(suppl): MS274–282.

    Google Scholar 

  37. O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, Weeks JC. Comparison of time-tradeo. utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives: Evi-dence for a possible plateai relationship. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJC, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JWH, de Haes HJCJM. The 'utility' of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12(2): 291–298.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Mackenzie T, Grover SA and The Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assess-ment Group. Health-related quality of life measures in coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. JAMA (submitted).

  40. Revicki DA, Wu AW, Murray MI. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Medical Care 1995; 33(Suppl 4): AS173–182.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tsevat J, Slozan JG, Kuntz KM, Ragland J, Currier JS, Sell RL. Health values of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Relationship to mental health and physical functioning. Medical Care 1996; 34(1): 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, Ha-bbema JD, De Haes JC. The 'utility' of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and propor-tional trade-off J Clin Epidemio 1995; 48(10): 1207–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Perez DJ, McGee R, Campbell AV, Christensen EA, Williams S. A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer. Qual Life Res 1997; 6(2): 133–138.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grover SA, Abrahamowicz M, Joseph L, Brewer C, Coupal L, Suissa S. The benefits of treating hyper-lipidemia to prevent coronary heart disease: Estimating changes in life expectancy and morbidity. JAMA 1992; 267(6): 816–822.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Grover SA, Paquet S, Levinton C, Coupal L, Zowall H. Estimating the benefits of modifying risk factors of cardiovascular disease. A comparison of primary ver-sus secondary prevention. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 655–662.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of risk and uncertainty 1992; 5: 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Grover SA and The Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group. The Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group. Conventional and chained standard gamble in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Johannesson M, Pliskin JS, Weinstein MC. A note of QALYs, time tradeo, and discounting. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 188–193.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Epidemiology; Centre for the Analysis of Cost-Effective Care; Divisions of General Internal Medicine; Clinical Immunology & Allergy, The Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec

    Lyne Lalonde, Ann E. Clarke, Lawrence Joseph & Steven A. Grover

  2. Departments of Medicine; Epidemiology & Biostatistics; Mathematics & Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec

    Lyne Lalonde, Ann E. Clarke, Lawrence Joseph, Todd Mackenzie & Steven A. Grover

Authors
  1. Lyne Lalonde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann E. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lawrence Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Todd Mackenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven A. Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lalonde, L., Clarke, A.E., Joseph, L. et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Qual Life Res 8, 399–409 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008991816278

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008991816278

Search

Navigation