4.5 Article

A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes?

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 969-977

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0225-4

关键词

ICECAP-O; EQ-5D; Economic evaluation; Older adults; Falls

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  2. Vancouver Coastal Health
  3. Canadian Institute for Health Emerging Team Grant (Vancouver Integrated Study on Aging (VISA))
  4. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award
  5. Canadian Institute for Health Research Canada New Investigator Award
  6. Canadian Institute for Health Research Canada
  7. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our research explored whether two preference-based outcome measures (EuroQol EQ-5D and ICECAP-O) are complements or substitutes in the context of the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinic for seniors. The EQ-5D and ICECAP-O were administered once at 12 months post first clinic attendance. We report descriptive statistics for all baseline characteristics collected at first clinic visit and primary outcomes of interest. We ascertain feasibility by reporting item completion rates for the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O. Contingency tables for a priori assertions between the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D were used to demonstrate whether unique or similar aspects of benefit were captured. We used exploratory factor analysis, to ascertain the number of unique underlying latent factors associated with the attributes assessed by the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O. We report data on 215 seniors who attended the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinic who had a mean age of 79.3 (6.2) years. The item completion rate was 99 % for the EQ-5D and 92 % for the ICECAP-O. The two contingency tables detailed few discrepancies. The results of the exploratory factor analysis indicate that the two instruments are tapping into distinct factors that are complementary. Our study suggests that the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O provide complementary information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据