Quality of Life in Oporto and South of Douro Region –

Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36

Introdução à MedicinaTurma 6 – 2006/2007

• Difficult to define

• Multidimensional: Subjective Objective

• Not a static definition – varies with time and from person to person.

• Quantifying QoL – important to improve populations’ well being.

What is Quality of Life (QoL)?

Jenney M, Campbell S. Measuring quality of life. Arch. Dis. Child. 1997; 77:347-350McKevitt C, Redfern J, La-Placa V, Wolfe CDA. Definig and using quality of life: a survey of health care professionals: Clinical Rehabilitation, 2003; 17: 865-870Felce D, Jonathan P. Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement: Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1995, 16 (1); 51-74.

What is Quality of Life (QoL)?

Felce D, Jonathan P. Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement: Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1995, 16 (1); 51-74.

EQ-5D

SF-36

Protocol

• Primary objective– Quantify the Health Related-Quality of Life (HR-QoL) of

the adult population in Oporto and South of Douro region.

– Compare measurement scales and subscales and analyse the agreement between two broadly used HR-QoL generic instruments – EQ-5D and SF-36.

• Secondary objectives– Compare results between typical groups:

• Age• Sex

– Compare the results of our study with the results of pre-existing studies.

Protocol

• Study design

– Cross-Sectional Survey

1.Cheap2.Quick3.No follow up, less resources

Protocol• Selection criteria:

– General adult population (aged 18 or above) within the Oporto and South of Douro region, living in a household with phone.

– Listed telephone numbers.• Sampling design:

Number of letters=

19140% = 478

MethodsMethods

Start

Finish

Send letter with questionnaire

Wait 2 weeks

Answer in 2 weeks period?

Insert data in SPSS

Contact by phone

Non response

Letter received?

Yes

Interested in answering?

Wish to participate in the

study?

Wait 1 week

No

Yes No

Answer?Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Send another letter

Another call

Wish to answer?

Get general data

Yes No

Protocol

• Sampling design:

– Random choice of phone numbers from the “Oporto and South of Douro” phonelist using www.randomizer.org - which randomly creates groups of numbers.

Sample selectionSample selection

Start

Random choice of page number (phonebook)

Random choice of line number (phonebook)

Random choice of column number

(phonebook)

Does the line number generated correspond to an unexisting line in the

column?

Continue to the next column (on the

same/next page)

Residence?

Find the next residence (on the same/next page)

No

Yes

No

Yes

Address, zip code and telephone number

Insert data in SPSS

Finish

478 residences selected?

Yes

No

Pilot study

• Test the adopted method and possibly improve it

• Questionnaires + 4 additional questions about the viability of the study

Questionnaire

Database

Results

Respondeu e reenviou o questionário?

5 16,7 16,7 16,7

21 70,0 70,0 86,7

4 13,3 13,3 100,0

30 100,0 100,0

Sim

Não

Carta não entregue

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Teve dificuldade em preencher o inquérito

5 100,0 100,0 100,0NãoValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Results

5 16,7%

21 70,0%

4 13,3%

0 ,0%

0 ,0%

3 60,0%

2 40,0%

4 80,0%

1 20,0%

1 20,0%

3 60,0%

1 20,0%

3 60,0%

2 40,0%

0 ,0%

0 ,0%

0 ,0%

0 ,0%

3 75,0%

1 25,0%

3 75,0%

1 25,0%

2 66,7%

1 33,3%

0 ,0%

5 100,0%

10 7

65 22

Sim

Não

Carta não entregue

Respondeu e reenviou oquestionário?

18-34

35-49

50-64

>= 65

Idades categorizadas

Masculino

Feminino

Sexo

Fumador

Ex-fumador

Nunca fumou

Fuma?

Empregado/conta própria

Reformado

Doméstica

Estudante

Procura emprego

Outro

Actividade actual

Sim

Não

Educação além da escolaridademínima obrigatória

Sim

Não

Possui curso superior ou qualificaçãoprofissional obrigatória

Sim

Não

Já teve contacto com doenças gravesao cuidar de outras pessoas?

Sim

Não

Teve dificuldade em preencher oinquérito

Quanto tempo demorou?

VAS

n % MeanStandardDeviation

1 96 87,1

2 55 70,4

1 50 52,9

1 70 66,5

11112

21121

21222

22112

ResultadoEQ-5D

Count Mean

VAS

Mean

EQ-5Díndice

Results

Results

Independent Samples Test

. . -,075 3 ,945 -1,1750 15,7431 -51,2765 48,9265

. . . -1,1750 . . .

Equal variancesassumed

Equal variancesnot assumed

EQ-5D índiceF Sig.

Levene's Test forEquality of Variances

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. ErrorDifference Lower Upper

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

Difference

t-test for Equality of Means

Group Statistics

4 69,225 14,0810 7,0405

1 70,400 . .

SexoMasculino

Feminino

EQ-5D índiceN Mean Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

Results

Descriptives

EQ-5D índice

3 75,967 9,6417 5,5667 52,015 99,918 70 87

2 59,700 9,6167 6,8000 -26,702 146,102 53 67

5 69,460 12,2059 5,4586 54,304 84,616 53 87

50-64

>= 65

Total

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval forMean

Minimum Maximum

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

EQ-5D índice

,067 1 3 ,812

LeveneStatistic df1 df2 Sig.

ANOVA

EQ-5D índice

317,525 1 317,525 3,422 ,161

278,407 3 92,802

595,932 4

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Results

Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol 5-D in the catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity . Barcelona: Quality of Life Research, 1998; 7: 311-322

One-Sample Statistics

5 69,460 12,2059 5,4586EQ-5D índiceN Mean Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

One-Sample Test

-4,056 4 ,015 -22,1400 -37,296 -6,984EQ-5D índicet df Sig. (2-tailed)

MeanDifference Lower Upper

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

Difference

Test Value = 91.6

Results

One-Sample Statistics

5 65,20 21,568 9,646VASN Mean Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol 5-D in the catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity . Barcelona: Quality of Life Research, 1998; 7: 311-322

One-Sample Test

-,612 4 ,574 -5,900 -32,68 20,88VASt df Sig. (2-tailed)

MeanDifference Lower Upper

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

Difference

Test Value = 71.1

ResultsEQ-5D indice categorizado * Idades categorizadas Crosstabulation

0 1 1

,6 ,4 1,0

,0% 100,0% 100,0%

,0% 50,0% 20,0%

,0% 20,0% 20,0%

2 1 3

1,8 1,2 3,0

66,7% 33,3% 100,0%

66,7% 50,0% 60,0%

40,0% 20,0% 60,0%

1 0 1

,6 ,4 1,0

100,0% ,0% 100,0%

33,3% ,0% 20,0%

20,0% ,0% 20,0%

3 2 5

3,0 2,0 5,0

60,0% 40,0% 100,0%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

60,0% 40,0% 100,0%

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Idadescategorizadas

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Idadescategorizadas

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Idadescategorizadas

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Idadescategorizadas

% of Total

Razoável

Bom

Muito bom

EQ-5D indicecategorizado

Total

50-64 >= 65

Idades categorizadas

Total

Chi-Square Tests

2,222a 2 ,329

2,911 2 ,233

1,667 1 ,197

5

Pearson Chi-Square

Likelihood Ratio

Linear-by-LinearAssociation

N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

6 cells (100,0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is ,40.

a.

Chi-Square Tests

5,556a 4 ,235

5,684 4 ,224

1,000 1 ,317

5

Pearson Chi-Square

Likelihood Ratio

Linear-by-LinearAssociation

N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

9 cells (100,0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is ,20.

a.

ResultsEQ-5D indice categorizado * Fuma? Crosstabulation

1 0 0 1

,2 ,6 ,2 1,0

100,0% ,0% ,0% 100,0%

100,0% ,0% ,0% 20,0%

20,0% ,0% ,0% 20,0%

0 2 1 3

,6 1,8 ,6 3,0

,0% 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%

,0% 66,7% 100,0% 60,0%

,0% 40,0% 20,0% 60,0%

0 1 0 1

,2 ,6 ,2 1,0

,0% 100,0% ,0% 100,0%

,0% 33,3% ,0% 20,0%

,0% 20,0% ,0% 20,0%

1 3 1 5

1,0 3,0 1,0 5,0

20,0% 60,0% 20,0% 100,0%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

20,0% 60,0% 20,0% 100,0%

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Fuma?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Fuma?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Fuma?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5Dindice categorizado

% within Fuma?

% of Total

Razoável

Bom

Muito bom

EQ-5D indicecategorizado

Total

Fumador Ex-fumador Nunca fumou

Fuma?

Total

ResultsEQ-5D indice categorizado * Já teve contacto com doenças graves? Crosstabulation

1 0 1

,6 ,4 1,0

100,0% ,0% 100,0%

33,3% ,0% 20,0%

20,0% ,0% 20,0%

2 1 3

1,8 1,2 3,0

66,7% 33,3% 100,0%

66,7% 50,0% 60,0%

40,0% 20,0% 60,0%

0 1 1

,6 ,4 1,0

,0% 100,0% 100,0%

,0% 50,0% 20,0%

,0% 20,0% 20,0%

3 2 5

3,0 2,0 5,0

60,0% 40,0% 100,0%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

60,0% 40,0% 100,0%

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5D indicecategorizado

% within Já teve contactocom doenças graves?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5D indicecategorizado

% within Já teve contactocom doenças graves?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5D indicecategorizado

% within Já teve contactocom doenças graves?

% of Total

Count

Expected Count

% within EQ-5D indicecategorizado

% within Já teve contactocom doenças graves?

% of Total

Razoável

Bom

Muito bom

EQ-5D indicecategorizado

Total

Sim Não

Já teve contacto comdoenças graves?

Total

Chi-Square Tests

2,222a 2 ,329

2,911 2 ,233

1,667 1 ,197

5

Pearson Chi-Square

Likelihood Ratio

Linear-by-LinearAssociation

N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

6 cells (100,0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is ,40.

a.

Study database