Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey : comprehensibility and patient preference. / Broderick, Lynne; Bjorner, Jakob B.; Lauher-Charest, Miranda; White, Michelle K.; Kosinski, Mark; Mulhern, Brendan; Brazier, John.

In: Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Vol. 6, No. 1, 47, 2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Broderick, L, Bjorner, JB, Lauher-Charest, M, White, MK, Kosinski, M, Mulhern, B & Brazier, J 2022, 'Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference', Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, vol. 6, no. 1, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

APA

Broderick, L., Bjorner, J. B., Lauher-Charest, M., White, M. K., Kosinski, M., Mulhern, B., & Brazier, J. (2022). Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 6(1), [47]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

Vancouver

Broderick L, Bjorner JB, Lauher-Charest M, White MK, Kosinski M, Mulhern B et al. Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022;6(1). 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

Author

Broderick, Lynne ; Bjorner, Jakob B. ; Lauher-Charest, Miranda ; White, Michelle K. ; Kosinski, Mark ; Mulhern, Brendan ; Brazier, John. / Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey : comprehensibility and patient preference. In: Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022 ; Vol. 6, No. 1.

Bibtex

@article{dc7a25928c90483880d039986568bdde,
title = "Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: comprehensibility and patient preference",
abstract = "Background: The SF-6Dv2 classification system assesses health states in six domains—physical functioning, role function, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Scores have previously been derived from the SF-36v2{\textregistered} Health Survey. We aimed to develop a six-item stand-alone SF-6Dv2 Health Utility Survey (SF-6Dv2 HUS) and evaluate its comprehensibility. Methods: Two forms of a stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS were developed for evaluation. Form A had 6 questions with 5–6 response choices, while Form B used 6 headings and 5–6 statements describing the health levels within each domain. The two forms were evaluated by 40 participants, recruited from the general population. Participants were randomized to debrief one form of the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS during a 75-min interview, using think-aloud techniques followed by an interviewer-led detailed review. Participants then reviewed the other form of SF-6Dv2 and determined which they preferred. Any issues or confusion with items was recorded, as was as overall preference. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and NVivo Software (v12). Results: Participants were able to easily complete both forms. Participant feedback supported the comprehensibility of the SF-6Dv2 HUS. When comparing forms, 25/40 participants preferred Form A, finding it clearer and easier to answer when presented in question/response format. The numbered questions and underlining of key words in Form A fostered quick and easy comprehension and completion of the survey. However, despite an overall preference for Form A, almost half of participants (n = 19) preferred the physical functioning item in Form B, with more descriptive response choices. Conclusion: The results support using Form A, with modifications to the physical functioning item, as the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS. The stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS is brief, easy to administer, and comprehensible to the general population.",
keywords = "Patient-centered research, Preference-based measure, SF-36v2, SF-6D, SF-6Dv2, Utility score",
author = "Lynne Broderick and Bjorner, {Jakob B.} and Miranda Lauher-Charest and White, {Michelle K.} and Mark Kosinski and Brendan Mulhern and John Brazier",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes",
issn = "2509-8020",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey

T2 - comprehensibility and patient preference

AU - Broderick, Lynne

AU - Bjorner, Jakob B.

AU - Lauher-Charest, Miranda

AU - White, Michelle K.

AU - Kosinski, Mark

AU - Mulhern, Brendan

AU - Brazier, John

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Background: The SF-6Dv2 classification system assesses health states in six domains—physical functioning, role function, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Scores have previously been derived from the SF-36v2® Health Survey. We aimed to develop a six-item stand-alone SF-6Dv2 Health Utility Survey (SF-6Dv2 HUS) and evaluate its comprehensibility. Methods: Two forms of a stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS were developed for evaluation. Form A had 6 questions with 5–6 response choices, while Form B used 6 headings and 5–6 statements describing the health levels within each domain. The two forms were evaluated by 40 participants, recruited from the general population. Participants were randomized to debrief one form of the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS during a 75-min interview, using think-aloud techniques followed by an interviewer-led detailed review. Participants then reviewed the other form of SF-6Dv2 and determined which they preferred. Any issues or confusion with items was recorded, as was as overall preference. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and NVivo Software (v12). Results: Participants were able to easily complete both forms. Participant feedback supported the comprehensibility of the SF-6Dv2 HUS. When comparing forms, 25/40 participants preferred Form A, finding it clearer and easier to answer when presented in question/response format. The numbered questions and underlining of key words in Form A fostered quick and easy comprehension and completion of the survey. However, despite an overall preference for Form A, almost half of participants (n = 19) preferred the physical functioning item in Form B, with more descriptive response choices. Conclusion: The results support using Form A, with modifications to the physical functioning item, as the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS. The stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS is brief, easy to administer, and comprehensible to the general population.

AB - Background: The SF-6Dv2 classification system assesses health states in six domains—physical functioning, role function, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Scores have previously been derived from the SF-36v2® Health Survey. We aimed to develop a six-item stand-alone SF-6Dv2 Health Utility Survey (SF-6Dv2 HUS) and evaluate its comprehensibility. Methods: Two forms of a stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS were developed for evaluation. Form A had 6 questions with 5–6 response choices, while Form B used 6 headings and 5–6 statements describing the health levels within each domain. The two forms were evaluated by 40 participants, recruited from the general population. Participants were randomized to debrief one form of the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS during a 75-min interview, using think-aloud techniques followed by an interviewer-led detailed review. Participants then reviewed the other form of SF-6Dv2 and determined which they preferred. Any issues or confusion with items was recorded, as was as overall preference. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and NVivo Software (v12). Results: Participants were able to easily complete both forms. Participant feedback supported the comprehensibility of the SF-6Dv2 HUS. When comparing forms, 25/40 participants preferred Form A, finding it clearer and easier to answer when presented in question/response format. The numbered questions and underlining of key words in Form A fostered quick and easy comprehension and completion of the survey. However, despite an overall preference for Form A, almost half of participants (n = 19) preferred the physical functioning item in Form B, with more descriptive response choices. Conclusion: The results support using Form A, with modifications to the physical functioning item, as the stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS. The stand-alone SF-6Dv2 HUS is brief, easy to administer, and comprehensible to the general population.

KW - Patient-centered research

KW - Preference-based measure

KW - SF-36v2

KW - SF-6D

KW - SF-6Dv2

KW - Utility score

U2 - 10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

DO - 10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35551545

AN - SCOPUS:85132659598

VL - 6

JO - Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

JF - Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

SN - 2509-8020

IS - 1

M1 - 47

ER -

ID: 342609491