Health Condition Impacts in a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Survey Vary Substantially by Preference-Based Health Index

An overview of the Be Well Home Health Navigator Program to reduce contaminants in well water: Design and methods

BACKGROUND

The Be Well Home Health Navigator Program is a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) implemented to compare a community health navigator program to usual care program to reduce contaminants in drinking water.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This 4-year two-armed RCT will involve well owners in Oregon that have private drinking water wells that contain arsenic, nitrate, or lead above maximum contaminant levels.

INTERVENTION

The intervention leverages the trusted relationship between Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Community Educators and rural well owners to educate, assist and motivate to make decisions and set actionable steps to mitigate water contamination. In this study, CES will serve as home health navigators to deliver: 1) individualized feedback, 2) positive reinforcement, 3) teach-back moments, 4) decision-making skills, 5) navigation to resources, 6) self-management, and 7) repeated contact for shaping and maintenance of behaviors. Usual care includes information only with no access to individual meetings with CES.

MEASURABLE OUTCOMES

Pre-specified primary outcomes include 1) adoption of treatment to reduce exposure to arsenic, nitrate, or lead in water which may include switching to bottled water and 2) engagement with well stewardship behaviors assessed at baseline, and post-6 and 12 months follow-up. Water quality will be measured at baseline and 12-month through household water tests. Secondary outcomes include increased health literacy scores and risk perception assessed at baseline and 6-month surveys.

IMPLICATIONS

The results will demonstrate the efficacy of a domestic well water safety program to disseminate to other CES organizations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05395663.

The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities

Introduction

Individuals with a history of smoking and a high risk of lung cancer often have a high prevalence of smoking-related comorbidities. The presence of these comorbidities might alter the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening by influencing the risk of complications, quality of life, and competing risks of death. Nevertheless, individuals with chronic diseases are underrepresented in screening clinical trials. In this study, we use microsimulation modeling to determine the impact of chronic diseases on lung cancer benefits and harms.

Methods

We extended a validated lung cancer screening microsimulation model that comprehensively recapitulates an individual's lung cancer development, progression, detection, follow-up, treatment, and survival. We parameterized the model to reflect the impact of chronic diseases on complications from invasive testing, quality of life, and mortality in individuals in five-year age categories between the ages of 50 and 80 years. Outcomes included life-years (LY) gained per 100,000 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and history of stroke compared with screening-eligible individuals without comorbidities.

Results

Among individuals between the ages of 50 and 54 years, we found that the presence of a comorbidity altered the LY gained from screening per 100,000 individuals depending on the comorbidity: 4296 LY with no comorbidities; 3462 LY, 3260 LY, 3031 LY, and 3257 LY with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, respectively. We observed greater reductions in LY gained in individuals with two comorbidities; we observed similar patterns for individuals between the ages of 55 and 59 years, 60 and 64 years, 65 and 69 years, 70 and 74 years, and 75 and 80 years.

Conclusions

Comorbidities reduce LY gained from screening per 100,000 compared with no comorbidities, and our results can be used by clinicians when discussing the benefits and harms of screening in their patients with comorbidities.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Vestibular Implantation for Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction

Importance

Standard-of-care treatment proves inadequate for many patients with bilateral vestibular hypofunction (BVH). Vestibular implantation is an emerging alternative.

Objective

To examine patient-reported outcomes from prosthetic vestibular stimulation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Multichannel Vestibular Implant (MVI) Early Feasibility Study is an ongoing prospective, nonrandomized, single-group, single-center cohort study conducted at Johns Hopkins Hospital that has been active since 2016 in which participants serve as their own controls. The study includes adults with severe or profound adult-onset BVH for at least 1 year and inadequate compensation despite standard-of-care treatment. As of March 2023, 12 candidates completed the eligibility screening process.

Intervention

The MVI system electrically stimulates semicircular canal branches of the vestibular nerve to convey head rotation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-reported outcome instruments assessing dizziness (Dizziness Handicap Inventory [DHI]) and vestibular-related disability (Vestibular Disorders-Activities of Daily Living [VADL]). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed using the Short Form-36 Utility (SF36U) and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), from which quality-adjusted life-years were computed.

Results

Ten individuals (5 female [50%]; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [5.0] years; range, 51-66 years) underwent unilateral implantation. A control group of 10 trial applicants (5 female [50%]; mean [SD] age, 55.1 [8.5] years; range, 42-73 years) completed 6-month follow-up surveys after the initial application. After 0.5 years of continuous MVI use, a pooled mean (95% CI) of within-participant changes showed improvements in dizziness (DHI, -36; 95% CI, -55 to -18), vestibular disability (VADL, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.7), and HRQOL by SF36U (0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.17) but not HUI3 (0.02; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.27). Improvements exceeded minimally important differences in the direction of benefit (exceeding 18, 0.65, and 0.03, respectively, for DHI, VADL, and SF36U). The control group reported no mean change in dizziness (DHI, -4; 95% CI, -10 to 2), vestibular disability (VADL, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 1.1) or HRQOL per SF36U (0; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.05) but an increase in HRQOL per HUI3 (0.10; 95% CI, 0.04-0.16). Lifetime HRQOL gain for MVI users was estimated to be 1.7 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 0.6-2.8) using SF36U and 1.4 (95% CI, -1.2 to 4.0) using HUI3.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that vestibular implant recipients report vestibular symptom improvements not reported by a control group. These patient-reported benefits support the use of vestibular implantation as a treatment for bilateral vestibular hypofunction.

Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis or Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) can be calculated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain scores. We assessed the construct validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT (hemodialysis or kidney transplant).

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in multicenter, cross-sectional studies of adults treated with KRT, recruited between April 2016 to March 2020 in Toronto, Canada. All participants provided informed consent. The outcome was the PROPr score. Coadministered outcome variables included the Short-Form Six-Domain (SF-6D) and EuroQol Five-Domain Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) scores. Socioeconomic and clinical variables included age, sex, diabetes, eGFR, serum albumin, hemoglobin, KRT, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Construct validity was assessed through correlations between PROPr and SF-6D or EQ-5D-5L, and associations between PROPr and other exposure variables. Health-condition impact estimates (coefficients for health conditions compared with a referent category, e.g., dialysis versus kidney transplant) were calculated using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of the 524 participants was 57 (17) years, 58% were male, and 45% were White. Median (interquartile range) score was 0.39 (0.24-0.58) for PROPr, 0.69 (0.58-0.86) for SF-6D, and 0.85 (0.70-0.91) for EQ-5D-5L. Large correlations were observed between PROPr versus SF-6D (0.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76 to 0.82) and EQ-5D-5L (0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75). Both PROPr and the other utility indices demonstrated health-condition impact in the expected direction. For example, the estimate for PROPr was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.21) for dialysis (versus kidney transplant), -0.05 (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01; P=0.08) for kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR of <45 versus ≥45 ml/min per 1.73 m², and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.33) for moderate/severe versus no/mild depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT.

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system by its association with social determinants of health

PURPOSE

PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) is a generic, societal, preference-based summary score that uses seven domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). This report evaluates construct validity of PROPr by its association with social determinants of health (SDoH).

METHODS

An online panel survey of the US adult population included PROPr, SDoH, demographics, chronic conditions, and four other scores: the EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 and Mark 3, and the Short Form-6D (SF-6D). Each score was regressed on age, gender, health conditions, and a single SDoH. The SDoH coefficient represents the strength of its association to PROPr and was used to assess known-groups validity. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between different summary scores and Spearman correlations between SDoH coefficients from different summary scores.

RESULTS

From 4142 participants, all summary scores had statistically significant differences for variables related to education, income, food and financial insecurity, and social interactions. Of the 42 SDoH variables tested, the number of statistically significant variables was 27 for EQ-5D-5L, 17 for HUI Mark 2, 23 for HUI Mark 3, 27 for PROPr, and 27 for SF-6D. The average SDoH coefficients were - 0.086 for EQ-5D-5L, - 0.039 for HUI Mark 2, - 0.063 for HUI Mark 3, - 0.064 for PROPr, and - 0.037 for SF-6D. Despite the difference in magnitude across the measures, Pearson correlations were 0.60 to 0.76 and Spearman correlations were 0.74 to 0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide evidence of construct validity supporting the use of PROPr monitor population health in the general US population.

Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in the general population of Chengdu city in China

The EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D are the most commonly used economic evaluation instruments. Data comparing the psychometric properties of the instruments are scarce in the Chinese population. This study compared the psychometric properties of these measures in the Chinese general population in Chengdu.From October to December 2012, 2186 respondents (age ≥18) were selected from urban and rural areas of Chengdu, China, via multistage stratified cluster sampling. Correlations, scatter plots and Bland-Altman plots were used to explore the relationships between the 2 measures. Ceiling and floor effects were used to analyze the score distribution. The known-groups method was used to evaluate discriminant validity.Among 2186 respondents, 2182 completed the questionnaire, and 2178 (18-82 years old, mean 46.09 ± 17.49) met the data quality requirement. The mean scores for the EQ-5D-3LCN, EQ-5D-3LUK, and SF-6DUK were 0.95 (Std: 0.11), 0.93 (Std: 0.15), and 0.79 (Std: 0.12), respectively. The correlations between domains ranged from 0.16 to 0.51. The correlation between the EQ-5D-3LCN and SF-6DUK and between the EQ-5D-3LUK and SF-6DUK was 0.46. The scatter plots and Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. The floor and ceiling effects were respectively 0.05% and 74.60% for the EQ-5D-3L and 0.05% and 2.53% for the SF-6DUK. The EQ-5D-3LCN, EQ-5D-3LUK and SF-6D have good discriminant validity in different sociodemographic and health condition groups. The SF-6D has higher level of discriminant validity in moderately healthy groups in the EQ-5D-3L full-health population.Both the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D are valid economic evaluation instruments in the Chinese general population in Chengdu but do not seem to be interchangeable. The EQ-5D-3L has a higher ceiling effect and higher level of discriminant validity among different sociodemographic groups, and the SF-6D has a lower ceiling effect and higher level of discriminant validity in health condition groups. Users may consider the evidence in the choice of these instruments.

Deficits in preference-based health-related quality of life after complications associated with tibial fracture

Aims

The aims of this study were to quantify health state utility values (HSUVs) after a tibial fracture, investigate the effect of complications, to determine the trajectory in HSUVs that result in these differences and to quantify the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) experienced by patients.

Patients and Methods

This is an analysis of 2138 tibial fractures enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds (FLOW) and Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) trials. Patients returned for follow-up at two and six weeks and three, six, nine and 12 months. Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) values were calculated and used to calculate QALYs.

Results

Compared with those who did not have a complication, those with a complication treated either nonoperatively or operatively had lower HSUVs at all times after two weeks. The HSUVs improved in all patients with the passage of time. However, they did not return to the remembered baseline preinjury values nor to US age-adjusted normal values by 12 months after the injury.

Conclusion

While the acute fracture and complications may have resolved clinically, the detrimental effect on a patient’s quality of life persists up to 12 months after the injury. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1227–33.

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system

OBJECTIVES

The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population.

METHODS

We utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population.

Measurement and Variation in Estimation of Quality of Life Effects of Patients Undergoing Treatment for Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Thyroid cancer incidence is increasing. The effect of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an essential variable in the absence of a change in life span for the majority of patients. HRQoL instruments, with data useful for between-disease comparisons, are being increasingly used for health policy and outcomes evaluation. Variation exits among the instruments based on the impact of a specific disease. We assessed which of four well-validated, preference-based surveys detect changes in health and clinical intervention in patients diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer (PTC).

METHODS

Four commonly used HRQoL questionnaires (Short Form-12v2® [SF6D], EuroQol-5D [EQ5D], and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 [HUI2, HUI3]) were administered to patients with the diagnosis of PTC at three perioperative time points during the first year of treatment. Clinicopathological and treatment course data were assessed for HRQoL impact including complications from surgery, re-operation for persistence/early recurrence, and adjuvant radioactive iodine treatment. We compared standard metrics, including ceiling effect, intraclass correlation coefficient, effect sizes, and quality-adjusted life-years between the four instruments.

RESULTS

Of 117 patients, 27% had a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety or depression, 41% had regional lymph node metastases, three had distant metastases and 49% underwent adjuvant radioactive iodine treatment. The ceiling effect (i.e., proportion with a perfect score) was greatest with EQ5D and least with SF6D. Index scores ranged from 0.77 (SF6D) to 0.90 (EQ5D). All scores declined at two weeks postoperatively and returned to pretreatment levels at six months. The SF6D was the only instrument to exceed the conventional minimally important difference between all three time points. Quality-adjusted life-years were as follows: SF6D, 0.79; EQ5D, 0.90; HUI2, 0.88; and HUI3, 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reflect the general good health of PTC patients. The effect on quality of life is primarily related to emotional and social impacts of treatment. The results support the measurement of a similar underlying construct, although variation in detecting changes in health exists between the instruments. Of the instruments assessed, the SF6D is the most responsive to treatment effects and should be utilized in future economic analyses in this patient population.

Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals' capacity to walk: a comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

This study explores variation in health state descriptions and valuations derived from preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in the context of spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

Individuals living with SCI were invited to complete a web-based, cross-sectional survey. The survey comprised questions regarding demographics, SCI classifications and characteristics, secondary health complications and conditions, quality of life and SCI-specific functioning in activities of daily living. Four preference-based health status classification systems were included; Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension questionnaire (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI) and SF-6D (derived from the SF-36v2). In addition to descriptive comparisons of index scores and item/dimension responses, analyses explored dimension-level correlation and absolute agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). Subgroup analyses examined the influence of individuals' self-reported ability to walk.

RESULTS

Of 609 invitations, 364 (60 %) individuals completed the survey. Across instruments, convergent validity was seen between pain and mental health dimensions, while sizeable variation pertaining to issues of mobility was observed. Mean index scores were 0.248 (HUI-3), 0.492 (EQ-5D-5L), 0.573 (AQoL-8D) and 0.605 (SF-6D). Agreement ranged from 'slight' (HUI-3 and SF-6D; ICC = 0.124) to 'moderate' (AQoL-8D and SF-6D; ICC = 0.634). Walking status had a markedly different impact on health state valuations across instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in the way that individuals are able to describe their health state across instruments is not unique to SCI. Further research is necessary to understand the significant differences in index scores and, in particular, the implications of framing mobility-related questions in the context of respondents' ability to walk.

A single question about a respondent's perceived financial ability to pay monthly bills explains more variance in health utility scores than absolute income and assets questions

PURPOSE

To evaluate a general question about ability to meet monthly bills as an alternative to direct questions about income and assets in health utility studies.

METHODS

We used data from the National Health Measurement Study-a US nationally representative telephone survey collected in 2005-2006. It included health utility measures (EuroQol-5D-3L, Health Utilities Index Mark 3, Short Form-6D, and Quality of Well-being Index) and household income, assets, and financial ability to meet monthly bills questions. Each utility score was regressed on: income and assets (Model 1); difficulty paying bills (DPB) (Model 2); income, assets, and DPB (Model 3). All models used survey weights and adjusted for demographics and education.

RESULTS

Among 3666 respondents, as income and assets increased, DPB decreased. The DPB question had fewer missing values (n = 30) than income (n = 311) or assets (n = 373). Model 2 (DPB only) explained more variance in health utility than Model 1 (income and assets only). Including all measures (Model 3) had very modest improvement in R (2), e.g., values were 0.112 (Model 1), 0.166 (Model 2), and 0.175 (Model 3) for EuroQol-5D-3L.

CONCLUSIONS

The single question on DPB yields more information and has less missing values than the traditionally used income and assets questions.