Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar;220(3):265.e1-265.e11.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094. Epub 2018 Nov 22.

Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Heidi S Harvie  1 , Amanda A Honeycutt  2 , Simon J Neuwahl  2 , Matthew D Barber  3 , Holly E Richter  4 , Anthony G Visco  5 , Vivian W Sung  6 , Jonathan P Shepherd  7 , Rebecca G Rogers  8 , Sharon Jakus-Waldman  9 , Donna Mazloomdoost  10 ; NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network
Affiliations

Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Heidi S Harvie et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research.

Objective: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Materials and methods: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods.

Results: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates.

Conclusion: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.

Keywords: EuroQol; Short Form 6D; health-related quality of life; minimal important difference; pelvic floor disorders; pelvic organ prolapse; utility score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
STROBE diagram
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Bland Altman plot for SF-6D and EQ-5D scores at baseline.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Minimally important differences for the SF-6D and EQ-5D with Anchor- and Distribution-Based Methods
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bradley SL, Weidner AC, Siddiqui NY, Gandhi MP, Wu JM. Shifts in National Rates of Inpatient Prolapse Surgery Emphasize Current Coding Inadequacies Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011. July ; 17(4): 204–208. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182254cf1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Practice Bulletin No. 185: Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2017. November;130(5):e234–e250 - PubMed
    1. Drummond MF, Schulpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 3rd Edition ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 1989;9(2):142–149. - PubMed
    1. Brooks R _EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72. - PubMed

Publication types