Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D

  • Garry R. Barton (a1), Jo Hodgekins (a1), Miranda Mugford (a1), Peter B. Jones (a2), Tim Croudace (a3) and David Fowler (a4)...

Abstract

Background

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis includes the EQ–5D; however, this is often not implemented in the area of mental health.

Aims

To assess the appropriateness of using the EQ–5D to measure improvements in mental health.

Method

Seventy-seven participants with psychosis were rated according to the EQ–5D and seven measures of mental health at both pre- and post-intervention. To assess construct validity we compared the (pre-intervention) mean EQ–5D scores for those with milder and more severe scores, according to each of the seven measures. To assess responsiveness we estimated the mean EQ–5D change score for those who improved (post-intervention), according to each of the measures.

Results

The mean EQ–5D score was more favourable for both those with milder scores (mean difference: 0.044 to 0.301) and for those who improved post-intervention (mean change: 0.029 to 0.117).

Conclusions

This suggests the EQ–5D should be considered for use in future cost-effectiveness studies in the area of mental health.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Dr Garry Barton, Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Email: g.barton@uea.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

Funding was provided by a trial platform grant from the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Knapp, M, Windmeijer, F, Brown, J, Kontodimas, S, Tzivelekis, S, Maria Haro, J, et al on behalf of the SOHO Study Group. Cost-utility analysis of treatment with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic treatments in patients with schizophrenia in the pan-European SOHO study. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 341–58.
2 Barrett, B, Byford, S, Knapp, MJ. Evidence of cost-effective treatments for depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2005; 84: 113.
3 Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, 2005.
4 Sach, TH, Barton, GR, Doherty, M, Muir, K, Jenkinson, C, Avery, AJ. The relationship between BMI and health related quality of life: comparing the EQ–5D, EuroQol VAS, and SF–6D. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2007; 31: 189–96.
5 Knapp, M, Thorgrimsen, L, Patel, A, Spector, A, Hallam, A, Woods, B, et al. Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 574–80.
6 McCrone, P, Risdale, L, Darbishare, L, Seed, P. Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise and usual care for patients with chronic fatigue in primary care. Psychol Med 2004; 34: 991–9.
7 Kennedy, TM, Chalder, T, McCrone, P, Darnley, S, Knapp, M, Jones, RH, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy in addition to antispasmodic therapy for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10: 183.
8 Priebe, S, Jones, G, McCabe, R, Briscoe, J, Wright, D, Sleed, M, et al. Effectiveness and costs of acute day hospital treatment compared with conventional in-patient care. Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 243–9.
9 Dixon, L, Hoch, JS, Clark, R, Bebout, R, Drake, R, McHugo, G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of two vocational rehabilitation programs for persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2002; 53: 1118–24.
10 Fenton, WS, Hoch, JS, Herrell, JM, Mosher, L, Dixon, L. Cost and cost-effectiveness of hospital vs residential crisis care for patients who have serious mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 357–64.
11 Beecham, J, Sleed, M, Knapp, M, Chiesa, M, Drahorad, C. The costs and effectiveness of two psychosocial treatment programmes for personality disorder: a controlled study. Eur Psychiatry 2006; 21: 102–9.
12 Byford, S, Knapp, M, Greenshields, J, Ukoumunne, OC, Jones, V, Thompson, S, et al (POMACT Group). Cost-effectiveness of brief cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual in recurrent deliberate self-harm: a decision-making approach. Psychol Med 2003; 33: 977–86.
13 Hurst, NP, Kind, P, Ruta, D, Hunter, M, Stubbings, A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ–5D). Rheumatology 1997; 36: 551–9.
14 Terwee, CB, Dekker, FW, Wiersinga, WM, Prummel, MF, Bossuyt, PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349–62.
15 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, 2008.
16 Fowler, D, Hodgekins, J, Painter, M, Reilly, T, Crane, C, Macmillan, I, et al. Cognitive behaviour therapy for improving social recovery in psychosis: a report from the ISREP MRC Trial platform study (Improving Social Recovery in Early Psychosis). Psychol Med 2009: Apr (online): 110.
17 Kay, SR, Fiszbein, A, Opler, LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987; 13: 261–76.
18 Beck, AT, Steer, RA. Beck Anxiety Inventory. The Psychological Corporation, 1987.
19 Beck, AT, Steer, RA, Brown, GK. BDI–II Manual. The Psychological Corporation, 1996.
20 Beck, AT, Steer, RA. Beck Hopelessness Scale Manual. The Psychological Corporation, 1988.
21 Goldman, HH, Skodol, AE, Lave, TR. Revising axis V for DSM–IV: a review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 1148–56.
22 Heinrichs, DW, Hanlon, TE, Carpenter, BN. The Quality of Life Scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syndrome. Schizophr Bull 1984; 10: 388–98.
23 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th revision, text revision) (DSM–IV–TR). APA, 2000.
24 Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, Williams, A. A social tariff for the EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey (Discussion Paper 138). Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995.
25 Brooks, R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 5372.
26 Dolan, P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–108.
27 de Wit, GA, Busschbach, J, De Charro, F. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000; 9: 109–26.
28 Dolan, P, Olsen, JA. Distributing Health Care: Economic and Ethical Issues. Oxford Medical Publications, 2002.
29 Brazier, J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 769–79.
30 Streiner, DL, Norman, GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, 2003.
31 Fitzpatrick, R, Davey, C, Buxton, MJ, Jones, DR. Criteria for assessing patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 14: 174.
32 Brazier, JE, Deverill, M, Green, C, Harper, R, Booth, A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1164.
33 Marra, CA, Esdaile, JM, Guh, D, Kopec, JA, Brazier, JE, Koehler, BE, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004; 42: 1125–31.
34 Gleitman, H. Psychology (2nd edn). Norton, 1986.
35 Gerard, K, Nicholson, T, Mullee, M, Mehta, R, Roderick, P. EQ–5D versus SF–6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: 91102.
36 Walters, SJ, Campbell, MJ. The use of bootstrap methods for analysing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF–36). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 70.
37 Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ–5D and SF–6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32.
38 Barton, GR, Sach, TH, Avery, AJ, Jenkinson, C, Doherty, M, Muir, KR. An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF–6D and EQ VAS, using socio-demographic factors and clinical conditions. Eur J Health Econ 2008; 9: 237–49.
39 Kind, P, Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Williams, A. Variations in population health status: results from a UK national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316: 736–41.
40 Fayers, P, Machin, D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (2nd edn). John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
41 Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–64.
42 Palmer, S, Davidson, K, Tyrer, P, Gumley, A, Tata, P, Norrie, J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder: results from the BOSCOT trial. J Personal Disord 2006; 20: 466–81.
43 Byford, S, Barrett, B, Roberts, C, Wilkinson, P, Dubicka, B, Kelvin, RG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and routine specialist care with and without cognitive–behavioural therapy in adolescents with major depression. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 521–7.
44 Hakkaart-van Roijen, L, van Straten, A, Al, M, Rutten, F, Donker, M. Cost-utility of brief psychological treatment for depression and anxiety. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 323–9.
45 Konig, 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.
46 van de Willige, G, Wiersma, D, Nienhuis, F, Jenner, J. Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric pateints: a comparison between EuroQol (EQ–5D) and WHOQoL. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 441–51.
47 Brazier, JE, Harper, R, Munro, J, Walters, SJ, Snaith, ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999; 38: 870–7.
48 Marra, CA, Woolcott, JC, Kopec, JA, Shojania, K, Offer, R, Brazier, JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF–6D, and the EQ–5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 1571–82.
49 Russell, AS, Conner-Spady, B, Mintz, A, Maksymowych, WP. The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 941–7.
50 Feeny, D, Furlong, W, Torrance, GW, Goldsmith, CH, Zhu, Z, DePauw, S, et al. Multi-attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40: 113–28.
51 Brazier, JE, Roberts, J, Deverill, M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF–36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–92.
52 Ware, JE, Sherbourne, C. The MOS 36 item short-form health survey. I Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83.
53 Bryan, S, Longworth, L. Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ–5D and SF–6D? Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6: 253–60.
54 Lamers, LM, Bouwmans, CAM, van Straten, A, Donker, MCH, Hakkaart, L. Comparison of EQ–5D and SF–6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1229–36.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D

  • Garry R. Barton (a1), Jo Hodgekins (a1), Miranda Mugford (a1), Peter B. Jones (a2), Tim Croudace (a3) and David Fowler (a4)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *