CANCER PATIENTS’ WILLINGNESS TO ROUTINELY COMPLETE THE EQ-5D INSTRUMENT AT CLINIC VISITS

Main Article Content

Hiten Naik
Xin Qiu
M. Catherine Brown
Mary Mahler
Henrique Hon
Kyoko Tiessen
Henry Thai
Valerie Ho
Christina Gonos
Rebecca Charow
Vivien Pat
Margaret Irwin
Lindsay Herzog
Anthea Ho
Wei Xu
Doris Howell
Soo Jin Seung
Geoffrey Liu
Nicole Mittmann

Keywords

EQ-5D, health utilities, cancer, quality of life, ethnicity, policy

Abstract

Background


Health utility (HU) scores play an essential role in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Routine clinical administration of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) can allow for HU and health related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments in the real world setting.


Objectives


The primary goals of this study were to evaluate whether patients were willing to complete the EQ-5D instrument on a routine basis and which clinical or demographic factors influence this willingness.


Methods


618 adult cancer survivors across multiple cancer disease sites at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre completed an acceptability survey after completing the EQ-5D instrument. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.


Results


The mean (SD) EQ-5D score was 0.81 (0.15). Among those surveyed, 88% reported that the EQ-5D was easy to complete. 91% took under 5 minutes and 88% were satisfied with its length. 85% were satisfied with the types of questions asked on the EQ-5D. Importantly, 92% reported that they would complete the EQ-5D, even if it were used solely for research purposes and 73% agreed with the notion of completing it regularly at their clinic visits. Patients with lower EQ-5D scores ( p =0.0006), and non-Caucasians ( p =0.0024; 60% willing) were less willing to complete the instrument on a regular basis. Curability of tumour, disease site, age, and gender did not influence willingness.


Conclusions


The majority of cancer patients across disease sites are willing to complete the EQ-5D instrument regularly, even if it were solely for research purposes, but up to 39% declined participation in the first place.

Abstract 190 | PDF Downloads 47

References

1. Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian cancer statistics 2015. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2015.
2. de Oliveira C, Bremner KE, Pataky R, et al. Trends in use and cost of initial cancer treatment in Ontario: a population-based descriptive study. CMAJ Open 2013;1(4):E151-E158. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20130041.
3. Whitehead SJ and Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq033.
4. Pickard, AS, Wilke, CT, Lin, HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25(5):365-384.
5. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006;9(4):213-218. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.
6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: Author; 2013.
7. Dudgeon D, King S, Howell D, et al. Cancer Care Ontario’s experience with implementation of routine physical and psychological symptom distress screening. Psychooncology 2012;64(February 2011).
8. Lang H-C, Chuang L, Shun S-C, Hsieh C-L, Lan C-F. Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Sup Care Cancer 2010;18(10):1279-1286. doi:10.1007/s00520-009-0745-9.
9. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One 2012;7(2):e31115. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0031115.
10. Basch E, Snyder C, McNiff K, et al. Patient-reported outcome performance measures in oncology. J Oncol Pract April 2014:1-3. doi:10.1200/JOP.2014.001423.
11. Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 2011;14(8):1101-1108. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003.
12. Cuffe S, Hon H, Tobros K, et al. Cancer patients’ acceptability of incorporating an epidemiology questionnaire within a clinical trial. Clin Trials 2015. doi:10.1177/1740774514568689.
13. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(4):714-724. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078.
14. Alexander GA, Chu KC, Ho RC. Representation of Asian Americans in clinical cancer trials. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10(8 Suppl):S61-S67.
15. Ma MH, Dphil KA, Dphil BL. Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials : a review of the literature. 2004;12(5):382-388.
16. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Grosse Frie K, Black N, van der Meulen J. Factors associated with non- response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10:34. doi:10.1186/1477- 7525-10-34.

Most read articles by the same author(s)