Development of a battery of instruments for detailed measurement of health status in patients with COPD in routine care: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument

Contains fulltext : 80284.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: To compose a battery of instruments that provides a detailed assessment of health status (HS) in COPD but that is applicable and clinically meaningful in routine care. METHODS: In a previous study, we developed the Nijmegen Integral Assessment Framework (NIAF) that organizes existing tests and instruments by the sub-domains of HS they measure. Based on clinical and statistical criteria (correlation coefficients and Cronbach alpha's) we selected for each sub-domain instruments from the NIAF. A COPD-study group was used to determine c-scores, and two control groups were used to determine the score ranges indicating normal functioning versus clinically relevant problems for each sub-domain. Existing questionnaire completion software (TestOrganiser) was adapted to enhance clinical applicability. RESULTS: The NCSI measures eleven sub-domains of physiological functioning, symptoms, functional impairment, and quality of life. The TestOrganiser automatically processes the data and produces the graphical PatientProfileChart, which helps to easily interpret results. This envisages the problem areas and discrepancies between the different sub-domains. CONCLUSION: The NCSI provides a valid and detailed picture of a patient's HS within 15-25 min. In combination with the PatientProfileChart, the NCSI can be used perfectly in routine care as screening instrument and as a guide in patient-tailored treatment

Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L.

PURPOSE: It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L. METHODS: A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs. RESULTS: Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably