Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores.

OBJECTIVE We evaluate the effects of mode and order of administration on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores. METHOD We analyzed HRQOL data from the Clinical Outcomes and Measurement of Health Study (COMHS). In COMHS, we enrolled patients with heart failure or cataracts at three sites (University of California, San Diego, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of Wisconsin). Patients completed self-administered HRQOL instruments at baseline and months 1 and 6 post-baseline, including the EuroQol (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale--self-administered (QWB-SA), and the Short Form (SF)-36v2. At the 6 months follow-up, individuals were randomized to mail or telephone administration first, followed by the other mode of administration. We used repeated measures mixed effects models, adjusting for site, patient age, education, gender, and race. RESULTS Included were 121 individuals entering a heart failure program and 326 individuals scheduled for cataract surgery who completed the survey by mail or phone at the 6-month follow-up. The majority of the sample was female (53%) and white (86%). About a quarter of the sample had high school education or less (26%). The average age was 66 (36-91 range). HRQOL scores were higher (more positive) for phone administration following mail administration. The largest differences in scores between phone and mail responses occurred for comparisons of telephone responses for those who were randomized to a mail survey first compared with mail responses for those randomized to a telephone survey first (i.e., mode effects for responses that were given on the second administration of the HRQOL measures). The QWB-SA was the only measure that did not display the pattern of mode effects. The biggest differences between modes were 4 points on the SF-36v2 physical health and mental health component summary scores, 0.06 on the SF-6D, 0.03 on the QWB-SA, 0.08 on the EQ-5D, 0.04 on the HUI2, and 0.10 on the HUI3. CONCLUSIONS Telephone administration yields significantly more positive HRQOL scores for all of the generic HRQOL measures except for the QWB-SA. The magnitude of effects was clearly important, with some differences as large as a half-standard deviation. These findings confirm the importance of considering mode of administration when interpreting HRQOL scores.

[1]  M. Palta,et al.  Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Clare Bradley,et al.  Not-only-a-title , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[3]  J. Conley.  Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design , 1983 .

[4]  J. Brazier,et al.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[5]  Robert M. Kaplan,et al.  The quality of well-being scale: Comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire , 1997 .

[6]  Janel Hanmer,et al.  Mode of Administration Is Important in US National Estimates of Health-Related Quality of Life , 2007, Medical care.

[7]  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.

[8]  L. Aday,et al.  Ninth Conference on Health Survey Research Methods , 2010 .

[9]  Don A. Dillman,et al.  Understanding differences in people's answers to telephone and mail surveys , 1996 .

[10]  R M Kaplan,et al.  A general health policy model: update and applications. , 1988, Health services research.

[11]  D. Cella,et al.  Comparability of Interview- and Self-Administration of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) in English- and Spanish-Speaking Ambulatory Cancer Patients , 2008, Medical care.

[12]  L. Kazis,et al.  Health Status Assessments Using the Veterans SF‐12 and SF‐36: Methods for Evaluating Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration , 2001, The Journal of ambulatory care management.

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

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

[15]  J. Pater.  Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[16]  Ron D Hays,et al.  Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.1 , 2007, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[17]  D. Feeny,et al.  The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[18]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[19]  J. Brazier,et al.  The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health From the SF-12 , 2004, Medical care.

[20]  Frank de Charro,et al.  The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective , 2003, Springer Netherlands.