Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

  • 제55권3호
  • /
  • Pages.234-242
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1975-8375(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-4521(eISSN)
대한예방의학회 (The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Health-related Quality of Life Instrument With 8 Items for Use in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Validation Study in Korea

  • Kim, Juyoung (Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Hyeon-Jeong (National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency) ;
  • Jo, Min-Woo (Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2022.01.11
  • 심사 : 2022.05.03
  • 발행 : 2022.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Health-related Quality of Life Instrument with 8 Items (HINT-8) in patients with diabetes. HINT-8 is a newly-developed, generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument. Methods: Three HRQoL instruments-HINT-8, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and Short Form Health Survey version 2.0 (SF-36v2)-were provided to 300 patients with diabetes visiting a tertiary hospital for follow-up visits in Korea. The HRQoL scores obtained using the HINT-8 were evaluated for subgroups with known differences based on demographics and diabetes-related characteristics (known-group validity). The mean scores of the instruments were compared between groups segmented by their responses to the HINT-8 (discriminatory ability). Correlation coefficients of the HINT-8 with other instruments were calculated (convergent and divergent validity). The Cohen kappa and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were also evaluated (test-retest reliability). Results: The average HINT-8 indexes were lower among women, older, and less-educated subjects. Subjects who did not list any problems on the HINT-8 had significantly higher HRQoL scores than those who did. The correlation coefficients of the HINT-8 with the EQ-5D-5L index and EuroQoL visual analogue scale were 0.715 (p<0.001) and 0.517 (p<0.001), respectively. The correlation coefficients between the HINT-8 index and the scores of 8 domains of the SF-36v2 ranged from 0.478 (p<0.001) to 0.669 (p<0.001). The Cohen kappa values for the HINT-8 ranged from 0.268 to 0.601, and the ICC of the HINT-8 index was 0.800 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.720 to 0.860). Conclusions: This study showed that the HINT-8 is a valid and reliable HRQoL instrument for patients with diabetes.

키워드

과제정보

The authors would like to thank Sun Kim for her help with data collection.

참고문헌

  1. Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Ohlrogge AW, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;138:271-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.02.023
  2. Harding JL, Pavkov ME, Magliano DJ, Shaw JE, Gregg EW. Global trends in diabetes complications: a review of current evidence. Diabetologia 2019;62(1):3-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4711-2
  3. Forssas E, Arffman M, Manderbacka K, Keskimaki I, Ruuth I, Sund R. Multiple complications among people with diabetes from Finland: an 18-year follow-up in 1994-2011. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2016;4(1):e000254. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000254
  4. Won JC, Lee JH, Kim JH, Kang ES, Won KC, Kim DJ, et al. Diabetes fact sheet in korea, 2016: an appraisal of current status. Diabetes Metab J 2018;42(5):415-424. https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2018.0017
  5. Lee JW, Kang HT, Lim HJ, Park B. Trends in diabetes prevalence among Korean adults based on Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys III-VI. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;138:57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.01.013
  6. Kim KJ, Kwon TY, Yu S, Seo JA, Kim NH, Choi KM, et al. Ten-year mortality trends for adults with and without diabetes mellitus in South Korea, 2003 to 2013. Diabetes Metab J 2018;42(5):394-401. https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2017.0088
  7. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics 2016;34(7):645-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
  8. Megari K. Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health Psychol Res 2013;1(3):e27. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2013.932
  9. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 2nd ed. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2011, p. 10 (Korean).
  10. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 2008;11(2):275-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x
  11. Lee WJ, Song KH, Noh JH, Choi YJ, Jo MW. Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27(3):255-260. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2012.27.3.255
  12. Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee JW, Lee HJ, Kim JK. Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0399-x
  13. Kim SH, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res 2016;25(7):1845-1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2
  14. Kim SH, Hwang JS, Kim TW, Hong YS, Jo MW. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D for cancer patients in Korea. Support Care Cancer 2012;20(12):3155-3160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1457-0
  15. Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, Jo MW. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res 2012;21(6):1065-1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1
  16. Kim SK, Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee SI. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3
  17. Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, Kim SH, Chung SM. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res 2013;22(8):2245-2253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0331-3
  18. Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health 2009;12(8):1187-1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00579.x
  19. Ock M, Jo MW, Lee SI. Measuring health related quality of life using EQ-5D in South Korea. J Health Tech Assess 2013;1(1):103-111 (Korean).
  20. Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee SI. Psychometric properties of the Korean short form-36 health survey version 2 for assessing the general population. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2013;7(2):61-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2013.03.001
  21. Jo MW. Development of the measurement tool for health related quality of life in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Cheongju: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014, p. 97 (Korean).
  22. Lee HJ, Jo MW, Choi SH, Kim YJ, Oh KW. Development and psychometric evaluation of measurement instrument for Korean health-related quality of life. Public Health Wkly Rep 2016;9(24):447-454 (Korean).
  23. Lee EH, Kim CJ, Cho SY, Chae HJ, Lee S, Kim EJ. Monitoring the use of health-related quality of life measurements in Korean studies of patients with diabetes. J Korean Acad Nurs 2011;41(4):558-567(Korean). https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.4.558
  24. El Achhab Y, Nejjari C, Chikri M, Lyoussi B. Disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments among adults diabetic: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008;80(2):171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2007.12.020
  25. Hu J, Gruber KJ, Hsueh KH. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the SF-36 in older adults with diabetes in Beijing, China. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;88(3):273-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2010.03.005
  26. Jo MW. Valuation of Korean health-related quality of life instrument with 8 items (HINT-8). Cheongju: Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2017, p. 28 (Korean).
  27. van Reenen M, Janssen B. EQ-5D-5L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2015, p. 9.
  28. Maruish ME. User's manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 3rd ed. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2011, p. 198.
  29. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004;42(9):851-859. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
  30. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21(2):271-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8
  31. Fayers PM, Hays R, Hays RD. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005, p. 421.
  32. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360-363.
  33. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  34. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014, p. 177.
  35. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  36. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22(7):1717-1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4
  37. Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics 2018;36(6):675-697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8
  38. Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and diabetes health profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-42
  39. Kiadaliri AA, Eliasson B, Gerdtham UG. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0344-z
  40. Koh D, Abdullah AM, Wang P, Lin N, Luo N. Validation of Brunei's Malay EQ-5D questionnaire in patients with type 2 diabetes. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0165555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165555