Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-kv5sj Total loading time: 0.214 Render date: 2021-09-23T09:17:43.454Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

WHICH QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES FIT YOUR RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

Irina Cleemput
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, AC Kruidtuin irina.cleemput@kce.fgov.be
Mattias Neyt
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, AC Kruidtuin

Abstract

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important endpoint of many healthcare interventions. This study develops guidance on how to select appropriate HRQoL measures for inclusion in a clinical trial, given the purposes of the HRQoL measurement.

Methods: The guidance is based on a systematic literature review, discussions with members of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and two rounds of public consultation.

Results: A set of twelve recommendations was developed, addressing the requirements for HRQoL data for relative effectiveness assessment, for cost-utility analyses and for informing clinical decision making. Recommendations relate to the choice of the type of measure as well as to aspects such as measurement frequency, target population and presentation.

Conclusions: The purpose and context of HRQoL measurement is crucial for the relevance of the data obtained with a specific HRQoL measure. It is recommended to always include a generic HRQoL instrument in clinical trials to cover a wide range of possible future uses of the HRQoL data.

Type
Methods
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. London: EMA; 2006:5.Google Scholar
2. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Goodman, CS. Healthcare technology assessment: Methods, framework, and role in policy making. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4 Spec No:SP200-14.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Jackowski, D, Guyatt, G. A guide to health measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003:8089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Kleijnen, S, Goettsch, W, d'Andon, A, et al. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. Background review. July 2011 (version 5B). Copenhagen: EUnetHTA; 2011.Google Scholar
6. Fitzpatrick, R, Davey, C, Buxton, MJ, Jones, DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv, 174.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Guyatt, GH, Feeny, DH, Patrick, DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Neyt, M. Towards more consistent use of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:345346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Stull, DE, Leidy, NK, Parasuraman, B, Chassany, O. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:929942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Machin, D, Weeden, S. Suggestions for the presentation of quality of life data from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:711724.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Petrillo, J, Cairns, J. Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:453461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Chuang, LH, Kind, P. Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: An empirical comparison of methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:491505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Wild, D, Eremenco, S, Mear, I, et al. Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:430440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Ware, JE Jr, Keller, SD, Gandek, B, Brazier, JE, Sullivan, M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare. 1995;11:525551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Gao, F, Ng, GY, Cheung, YB, et al. The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:206213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Hahn, EA, Bode, RK, Du, H, Cella, D. Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2006;3:280290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Coons, SJ, Gwaltney, CJ, Hays, RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Hacker, ED. Technology and quality of life outcomes. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2010;26:4758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Hoedemaekers, R, Dekkers, W. Key concepts in health care priority setting. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:309323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Staquet, M, Berzon, R, Osoba, D, Machin, D. Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:496502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Calvert, MJ, Freemantle, N. Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 2: Methodological considerations for the assessment of health-related quality of life in clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004;29:8594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Billingham, LJ, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1152.Google ScholarPubMed
23. Fayers, PM, Machin, D. Quality of life: Assessment, analysis, and interpretation. Chichester, New York: John Wiley; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Kristensen, F, Sigmund, H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

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.

WHICH QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES FIT YOUR RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT?
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.

WHICH QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES FIT YOUR RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT?
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.

WHICH QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES FIT YOUR RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *