Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD

JJV Busschbach, BHR Wolffenbuttel, Lieven Annemans UGent, WJ Meerding and M Koltowska-Haggstrom (2011) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS. 12(3). p.243-252
abstract
Quality of life (QoL) measures are important in growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) in adults. Ideally, for use in health economics, QoL should be expressed in utilities. The aim of this study was to obtain reference values and utilities for QoL of GHD in adults in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study was conducted in three stages: (1) The Quality of Life-Assessment for Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA) and the EQ-5D were administered in a representative sample of 6,875 individuals from the Belgian and 1,400 individuals from the general Dutch population. The EQ-5D(index) can be used to estimate utilities. Using a regression, utilities were predicted from the QoL-AGHDA. (2) QoL-AGHDA scores were obtained from 299 Belgian and 234 Dutch adult patients with GHD and no GH replacement. These scores were converted to utilities and compared the burden of disease with other patient groups. (3) To test the criterion validity, the 'standard' EQ-5D(index) was used in a subsample of 64 Dutch GHD patients and compared with the predicted utilities. We obtained data from 1,026 Belgian (response rate = 15%) and 1,038 Dutch respondents (response rate = 74%). The Belgian mean QoL-AGHDA value was 6.95 (90% range = 14.00), and the Dutch mean was 5.48 (range = 13.00). The R (2) of the regression model to predict the EQ-5D(index) was 0.360 (Belgium) and 0.482 (the Netherlands). We demonstrated a considerable burden of disease in GHD patients, comparable to patients with hypertension or with type II diabetes. The criterion validity was 0.407 (intraclass correlation, ICC). Interventions in GHD can now be evaluated more validly in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
Quality of life, Growth hormone/*deficiency, Quality-adjusted life years, Questionnaires, Reference values, QUALITY-OF-LIFE, EUROQOL EQ-5D, REPLACEMENT, DEFICIENCY, VALUATION, DISEASE, SCALE
journal title
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS
Eur. J. Health Econ.
volume
12
issue
3
pages
243 - 252
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000289575600006
JCR category
ECONOMICS
JCR impact factor
1.5 (2011)
JCR rank
65/320 (2011)
JCR quartile
1 (2011)
ISSN
1618-7598
DOI
10.1007/s10198-010-0241-7
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
2014497
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2014497
date created
2012-02-01 11:44:07
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:42:50
@article{2014497,
  abstract     = {Quality of life (QoL) measures are important in growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) in adults. Ideally, for use in health economics, QoL should be expressed in utilities. The aim of this study was to obtain reference values and utilities for QoL of GHD in adults in Belgium and the Netherlands. 
The study was conducted in three stages: (1) The Quality of Life-Assessment for Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA) and the EQ-5D were administered in a representative sample of 6,875 individuals from the Belgian and 1,400 individuals from the general Dutch population. The EQ-5D(index) can be used to estimate utilities. Using a regression, utilities were predicted from the QoL-AGHDA. (2) QoL-AGHDA scores were obtained from 299 Belgian and 234 Dutch adult patients with GHD and no GH replacement. These scores were converted to utilities and compared the burden of disease with other patient groups. (3) To test the criterion validity, the 'standard' EQ-5D(index) was used in a subsample of 64 Dutch GHD patients and compared with the predicted utilities. 
We obtained data from 1,026 Belgian (response rate = 15\%) and 1,038 Dutch respondents (response rate = 74\%). The Belgian mean QoL-AGHDA value was 6.95 (90\% range = 14.00), and the Dutch mean was 5.48 (range = 13.00). The R (2) of the regression model to predict the EQ-5D(index) was 0.360 (Belgium) and 0.482 (the Netherlands). We demonstrated a considerable burden of disease in GHD patients, comparable to patients with hypertension or with type II diabetes. The criterion validity was 0.407 (intraclass correlation, ICC). 
Interventions in GHD can now be evaluated more validly in Belgium and the Netherlands.},
  author       = {Busschbach, JJV and Wolffenbuttel, BHR and Annemans, Lieven and Meerding, WJ and Koltowska-Haggstrom, M},
  issn         = {1618-7598},
  journal      = {EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS},
  keyword      = {Quality of life,Growth hormone/*deficiency,Quality-adjusted life years,Questionnaires,Reference values,QUALITY-OF-LIFE,EUROQOL EQ-5D,REPLACEMENT,DEFICIENCY,VALUATION,DISEASE,SCALE},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {243--252},
  title        = {Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0241-7},
  volume       = {12},
  year         = {2011},
}

Chicago
Busschbach, JJV, BHR Wolffenbuttel, Lieven Annemans, WJ Meerding, and M Koltowska-Haggstrom. 2011. “Deriving Reference Values and Utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in Adult GHD.” European Journal of Health Economics 12 (3): 243–252.
APA
Busschbach, J., Wolffenbuttel, B., Annemans, L., Meerding, W., & Koltowska-Haggstrom, M. (2011). Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 12(3), 243–252.
Vancouver
1.
Busschbach J, Wolffenbuttel B, Annemans L, Meerding W, Koltowska-Haggstrom M. Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS. 2011;12(3):243–52.
MLA
Busschbach, JJV, BHR Wolffenbuttel, Lieven Annemans, et al. “Deriving Reference Values and Utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in Adult GHD.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS 12.3 (2011): 243–252. Print.