Preference-based measurement of mobility-related quality of life: developing the MobQoL-7D health state classification system

References

• Department for Work and Pensions. Family resources survey 2018/19. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Improving Quality. Right chair, right time, right now. London: NHS Improving Quality; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Digital. Wheelchair services: operational data collection – Quarter 3 2019/20 (October–December 2019); 2020. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/national-wheelchair/publication-files/
   Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Edwards RT, et al. Wheelchair interventions, services and provision for disabled children: a mixed-method systematic review and conceptual framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toro-Hernández ML, Kankipati P, Goldberg M, et al. Appropriate assistive technology for developing countries. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2019;30:847–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, et al. Assistive products and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Glob Health. 2016;12:79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Brouwer WB. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;16:16–74.
   Google Scholar
• Pettitt DA, Raza S, Naughton B, et al. The limitations of QALY: a literature review. J Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016;6:334.
   Google Scholar
• Bray N, Spencer LH, Edwards RT. Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment: a systematic review of validity and responsiveness. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PL, Livingston MH, Palisano RJ, et al. Quality of life and health-related quality of life of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:516–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young N, Rochon T, McCormick A, et al. The health and quality of life outcomes among youth and Young adults with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:143–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocque BG, Bishop ER, Scogin MA, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in children with spina bifida. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;15:144–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilford JM, Grosse SD, Robbins JM, et al. Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1087–1098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingston MH, Rosenbaum PL. Adolescents with cerebral palsy: stability in measurement of quality of life and health-related quality of life over 1 year. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:696–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims-Williams HJ, Sims-Williams HP, Mbabazi Kabachelor E, et al. Quality of life among children with spina bifida in Uganda. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102:1057–1061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young NL, Sheridan K, Burke TA, et al. Health outcomes among youths and adults with Spina bifida. J Pediatr. 2013;162:993–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Harris N, et al. Measuring the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility: examining correlation and agreement between children and parent proxies. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Usuba K, Oddson B, Gauthier A, et al. Changes in gross motor function and health-related quality of life in adults with cerebral palsy: an 8-year follow-up study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:2071–2077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand P, Roope LSJ, Culyer AJ, et al. Disability and multidimensional quality of life: a capability approach to health status assessment. Health Econ. 2020;29:748–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Spencer LH, Tuersley L, et al. Development of the MobQoL patient reported outcome measure for mobility-related quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartonek A, Saraste H, Danielsson D. Health-related quality of life and ambulation in children with myelomeningocele in a Swedish population. Acta Paediatr. 2012;101:953–956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Harris N, et al. Defining health-related quality of life for young wheelchair users: a qualitative health economics study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0179269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogart KR. The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability. Rehabil Psychol. 2014;59:107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118:215–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma R, Stano M, Haas M. Adjusting to changes in health: implicationsfor cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ. 2004;23:335–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin E, Green C. A systematic review of the literature on the development of condition-specific preference-based measures of health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:161–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin E, Green C. A quality-adjusted life-year measure for multiple sclerosis: Developing a patient-reported health state classification system for a multiple sclerosis-specific preference-based measure. Value Health. 2015;18:1016–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beusterien K, Leigh N, Jackson C, et al. Integrating preferences into health status assessment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the ALS Utility Index. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. 2005;6:169–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. TAD. 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mills T, Holm MB, Trefler E, et al. Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:38–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley RK, Stafford DJ, Rasch E, et al. Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40:301–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil. 1996;9:159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Cusick A, McIntyre S, Novak I, et al. A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian occupational performance measure for paediatric rehabilitation research. Pediatr Rehabil. 2006;9:149–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Miller-Pogar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: development of the wheelchair outcomes measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:275–285.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tuersley L, Bray N, Edwards RT. Development of the Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh): a patient-centred outcome measure for young wheelchair users. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0209380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, et al. The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:33–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care. 2002;40:113–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavranezouli I, Brazier J, Young T, et al. Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: The development of CORE-6D from a measure of common mental health problems (CORE-OM). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:321–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell PM, Roberts TE, Barton PM, et al. Assessing sufficient capability; a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:71–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office for Disability Issues. Equality Act 2010 guidance: guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability. London: Office for Disability Issues; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and reporting of patietn-reported outcomes. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeshke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In Spiker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Laerd Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides: Mann-Whitney U test using SPSS Statistics. 2015. Available from: https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/spss/mwut/mann-whitney-test-in-spss.php
   Google Scholar
• Williams B, Brown T, Onsman A. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas J Paramedicine. 2010;8:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Young T, Yang Y, Brazier J, et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:253–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Fit diagnosis: infit outfit mean-square standardized. 2020. Available from: https://www.winsteps.com/winman/misfitdiagnosis.htm
   Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Pallant J, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Reliability and separation of measures. 2020. Available from: https://www.winsteps.com/winman/reliability.htm
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program User’s Guide. Beaverton (OR): Winsteps.com; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Smith AB, Fallowfield LJ, Stark DP, et al. A Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis of the general health questionnaire (GHQ)-12. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. London: SAGE; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar