Mode of Administration Is Important in US National Estimates of Health-Related Quality of Life

Background:It is unknown if different national surveys that vary in mode of administration yield similar national averages for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Purpose:Examine HRQoL scores from 4 surveys representative of the noninstitutionalized US adult population for patterns related to age, gender, and mode of administration. Methods:We use data from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (JCUSH; telephone survey), 2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; mail survey), National Health Measurement Study (NHMS; telephone survey), and US Valuation of the EuroQol EQ-5D Health States Survey (USVEQ; self-administered with interviewer present). We compare estimates from the EQ-5D, Visual Analog Scale, Health Utilities Index Mark 3, and general self-rated health stratified by age and gender. Scores were also regressed on age and gender within each survey and in a pooled analysis. Results:We used 4939 subjects from JCUSH, 23,006 from MEPS, 3844 from NHMS, and 3878 from USVEQ. The majority of age and gender strata had instrument completion rates above 85%. Age- and gender-stratified estimates of HRQoL scores tended to be consistent when mode of administration (self- or interviewer-administered) was the same. Telephone administration yielded more positive HRQoL estimates than self-administration in older age groups. Older age groups and females reported lower HRQoL than younger age groups and males regardless of mode of administration. Conclusions:When choosing survey-collected HRQoL scores for comparative purposes, analysts need to take mode of administration into account.

[1]  Steffie Woolhandler,et al.  Access to care, health status, and health disparities in the United States and Canada: results of a cross-national population-based survey. , 2006, American journal of public health.

[2]  Susan O Griffin,et al.  Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis--United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002. , 2005, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[3]  M. Palta,et al.  US Norms for Six Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes From the National Health Measurement Study , 2007, Medical care.

[4]  A. Bowling.  Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. , 2005, Journal of public health.

[5]  Barbara Gandek,et al.  How to score version 2 of the SF-12(R) health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1) , 2005 .

[6]  Liam B. Quinn,et al.  Fast Ethernet , 1997 .

[7]  R. Rabin,et al.  EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[8]  A. K. Taylor,et al.  The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national health information resource. , 1996, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[9]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[10]  C. McHorney,et al.  Comparisons of the Costs and Quality of Norms for the SF-36 Health Survey Collected by Mail Versus Telephone Interview: Results From a National Survey , 1994, Medical care.

[11]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[12]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[13]  R. Kobau,et al.  Health-related quality of life surveillance--United States, 1993-2002. , 2005, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[14]  L. von Essen,et al.  Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults: Swedish normative data for the SF-36 and the HADS, and the influence of age, gender, and method of administration , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[15]  Stephen R. Porter,et al.  Non-response in student surveys: The Role of Demographics, Engagement and Personality , 2005 .

[16]  R A Lyons,et al.  SF-36 scores vary by method of administration: implications for study design. , 1999, Journal of public health medicine.

[17]  M. Gold.  Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[18]  A Bowling,et al.  Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. , 1999, Journal of public health medicine.

[19]  D. Fryback,et al.  Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  R W Sanson-Fisher,et al.  An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  D. Feeny,et al.  Does it matter whom and how you ask? inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  D. Feeny,et al.  Self-Reported Health Status of the General Adult U.S. Population as Assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index , 2005, Medical care.

[23]  J. Gentleman,et al.  Comparing health and health care use in Canada and the United States. , 2006, Health affairs.