4.5 Article

Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation

Journal

HEART
Volume 92, Issue 1, Pages 62-67

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2004.052787

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To analyse the psychometric properties of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) applied to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Setting: Rehabilitation hospital. Patients and design: 106 consecutive patients with ACS (51% myocardial infarction, 42% coronary artery bypass grafting, 7% angina) completed the EQ-5D, the 36 item short form health survey (SF-36), and the MacNew questionnaire at admission, at discharge, and three months after inpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Acceptance, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D were tested. Results: The EQ-5D was highly accepted. The EQ-5D index showed substantial ceiling effects after rehabilitation. As expected the EQ- 5D visual analogue scale (VAS) score (70.3 v 57.1) and EQ-5D index (77.8 v 64.5) were significantly better for patients with myocardial infarction than for patients who underwent surgery (both p <= 0.001). Significant correlations were found between the EQ-5D VAS score, EQ-5D index, and domains of the SF-36 (r = 0.21 to r = 0.74). The correlation with the MacNew subscores and with the global score ranged between 0.55 and 0.78. With repeated measurement the EQ-5D showed reasonable reliability in stable patients with intraclass correlation ranging between 0.91 and 0.54. EQ-5D was responsive in patients who indicated improvement in health states between admission and discharge (effect size 0.74 - 0.82). Conclusion: The psychometric properties of the EQ-5D were satisfying. It is a reasonably valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for patients with ACS. It may be useful in clinical research and epidemiological studies to generate preference based valuations of health related quality life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available