Premium
Validation of a C hinese version of the Quality of Well‐Being Scale–Self‐Administered (QWB‐SA) in patients with epilepsy
Author(s) -
Gao Lan,
Xia Li,
Pan SongQing,
Xiong Tao,
Li ShuChuen
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
epilepsia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.687
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1528-1167
pISSN - 0013-9580
DOI - 10.1111/epi.12324
Subject(s) - medicine , epilepsy , interquartile range , intraclass correlation , quality of life (healthcare) , eq 5d , physical therapy , construct validity , psychometrics , health related quality of life , psychiatry , clinical psychology , nursing , disease
Summary Purpose Generic preference‐based h ealth‐ r elated q uality of l ife ( HRQ o L ) instruments are increasingly used to estimate the q uality‐adjusted l ife y ears ( QALY s) in cost‐effectiveness/utility studies. However, no such tool has been used and validated in epilepsy patients in C hina. This study was conducted to validate a generic preference‐based HRQ o L instrument, namely the Q uality of W ell‐Being Scale–Self‐Administered ( QWB ‐ SA ) in C hinese patients with epilepsy. Methods Accepted translation procedures were followed to develop the C hinese QWB ‐ SA . An epilepsy group (adults with established diagnosis of epilepsy) and a control group (adults without manifested cognitive problems) were recruited between July and October, 2012, from two tertiary hospitals in C hina. After giving informed consent, each subject completed both the QWB ‐ SA and the E uro Q ol ( EQ ‐5 D ) as well as provided sociodemographic data. Construct validity was examined by six (convergent) and two (discriminative) a priori hypotheses. Sensitivity was compared by ability to differentiate epilepsy‐specific variable‐based subgroups. Agreement between the QWB ‐ SA and EQ ‐5 D was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient ( ICC ) and B land‐ A ltman plot. Key Findings One hundred forty‐four epilepsy patients and 323 control subjects were enrolled, respectively. The utility medians (interquartile range, IQR ) for the QWB ‐ SA and EQ ‐5 D were 0.673 (0.172), 0.848 (0.275) for epilepsy group and 0.775 (0.258), 1.000 (0.152) for control group, respectively. The difference in utilities between the two measures were significant (p < 0.0001). Construct validity was demonstrated by six a priori hypotheses. In addition, the QWB ‐ SA was able to discriminate across different seizure frequency and antiepileptic drug ( AED ) treatment subgroups. Agreement between the QWB ‐ SA and EQ ‐5 D was demonstrated by ICC (0.725). Finally, the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that group and the EQ ‐ VAS had influences on the utility difference of these two measures, whereas seizure frequency and number of AED s were predictors of HRQ o L as measured by the QWB ‐ SA . Significance The QWB ‐ SA is a valid and sensitive HRQ o L measure in C hinese patients with epilepsy. Compared to the EQ ‐5 D , the QWB ‐ SA showed superiority in coverage of health dimensions, sensitivity, and ceiling effects. However, future study is still needed to ascertain its responsiveness.