We chose the EQ-5D over other health utility measures, such as the Short-Form Health Survey-6D, because of its simplicity, sufficient responsiveness to changes in health states, relatively wide range of utility scores generated by the instrument, and availability of preference weight for our study population (11, 14).
Participants rated clinical marker states (CMS) to make respondents familiar with the task of preference instruments, ground their ratings in relation to other health states, and help investigators interpret patient ratings.
Health-related quality of life is measured on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health) using a utility instrument which measures individual strength of preference between alternative health states [ 16].
In subjects without cognitive impairment, among the six possible pairings of preference measurement instruments, there were significant correlations between three pairings (VAS TTO, rho = 0.19, P = 0.018; SG TTO, rho = 0.36, P < 0.001; SG WTP, rho = -0.33, P < 0.001) and a trend towards significance with another pairing (VAS:WTP, rho = 0.16, P = 0.054).
To assess coping we used the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ), a widely used instrument that measures the relative degree of preference for a number of coping strategies and which is sensitive to the maladaptive coping preferences common to schizophrenia [ 15].
As highlighted previously, the vast majority of preference based HRQOL instruments such as the EQ-5D were developed for application in a health care context and are narrowly focused on health status alone a dimension highlighted in both community and residential aged care contexts, but it may not be the most appropriate indicator for measuring quality of life in older people.
Bennette CS, Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, et al. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT).
He said the Telemann would be performed with modern instruments, a preference of his.
In order to try and understand the reasons for these differences, it is important to consider both the descriptive systems of the instruments and, for preference based measures, the valuation methods [ 22], and there are marked differences between the SF-6D and EQ-5D in both these areas [ 35].
Recent analyses of the international cost-utility literature suggest a trend towards the increased use of generic health status instruments and the elicitation of preferences in community samples [ 39].
Therefore, additional comparisons of preference-based instruments against other external instruments may be required.
