Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7969
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYang, Y-
dc.contributor.authorLongworth, L-
dc.contributor.authorBrazier, J-
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-03T09:46:13Z-
dc.date.available2014-02-03T09:46:13Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationQuality of Life Research, 22(10), 2813-2828, 2013en_US
dc.identifier.issn0962-9343-
dc.identifier.urihttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11136-013-0417-6en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7969-
dc.descriptionThis article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: This review examines psychometric performance of three widely used generic preference-based measures, that is, EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and Short-form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) in patients with hearing impairments. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies of patients with hearing impairments where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted and analysed to assess the reliability, validity (known group differences and convergent validity) and responsiveness of the measures across hearing impairments. Results: Fourteen studies (18 papers) were included in the review. HUI3 was the most commonly used utility measures in hearing impairment. In all six studies, the HUI3 detected difference between groups defined by the severity of impairment, and four out of five studies detected statistically significant changes as a result of intervention. The only study available suggested that EQ-5D only had weak ability to discriminate difference between severity groups, and in four out of five studies, EQ-5D failed to detected changes. Only one study involved the SF-6D; thus, the information is too limited to conclude on its performance. Also evidence for the reliability of these measures was not found. Conclusion: Overall, the validity and responsiveness of the HUI3 in hearing impairment was good. The responsiveness of EQ-5D was relatively poor and weak validity was suggested by limited evidence. The evidence on SF-6D was too limited to make any judgment. More head-to-head comparisons of these and other preference measures of health are required.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipMedical Research Councilen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofThe Health Economics Research Group-
dc.subjectValidityen_US
dc.subjectResponsivenessen_US
dc.subjectEQ-5Den_US
dc.subjectHUI3en_US
dc.subjectSF-6Den_US
dc.subjectHearing impairmentsen_US
dc.titleAn assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0417-6-
Appears in Collections:Community Health and Public Health
Brunel OA Publishing Fund
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Notice.pdf9.17 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.