Effects of Mode and Order of Administration on Generic Health-Related Quality of Life Scores
Article first published online: 15 MAY 2009
© 2009, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)
Value in Health
Volume 12, Issue 6, pages 1035–1039, September 2009
How to Cite
Hays, R. D., Kim, S., Spritzer, K. L., Kaplan, R. M., Tally, S., Feeny, D., Liu, H. and Fryback, D. G. (2009), Effects of Mode and Order of Administration on Generic Health-Related Quality of Life Scores. Value in Health, 12: 1035–1039. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00566.x
- Issue published online: 24 JUL 2009
- Article first published online: 15 MAY 2009
- generic measures;
- mode effects
Objective: We evaluate the effects of mode and order of administration on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores.
Method: We analyzed HRQOL data from the Clinical Outcomes and Measurement of Health Study (COMHS). In COMHS, we enrolled patients with heart failure or cataracts at three sites (University of California, San Diego, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of Wisconsin). Patients completed self-administered HRQOL instruments at baseline and months 1 and 6 post-baseline, including the EuroQol (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale—self-administered (QWB-SA), and the Short Form (SF)-36v2. At the 6 months follow-up, individuals were randomized to mail or telephone administration first, followed by the other mode of administration. We used repeated measures mixed effects models, adjusting for site, patient age, education, gender, and race.
Results: Included were 121 individuals entering a heart failure program and 326 individuals scheduled for cataract surgery who completed the survey by mail or phone at the 6-month follow-up. The majority of the sample was female (53%) and white (86%). About a quarter of the sample had high school education or less (26%). The average age was 66 (36–91 range). HRQOL scores were higher (more positive) for phone administration following mail administration. The largest differences in scores between phone and mail responses occurred for comparisons of telephone responses for those who were randomized to a mail survey first compared with mail responses for those randomized to a telephone survey first (i.e., mode effects for responses that were given on the second administration of the HRQOL measures). The QWB-SA was the only measure that did not display the pattern of mode effects. The biggest differences between modes were 4 points on the SF-36v2 physical health and mental health component summary scores, 0.06 on the SF-6D, 0.03 on the QWB-SA, 0.08 on the EQ-5D, 0.04 on the HUI2, and 0.10 on the HUI3.
Conclusions: Telephone administration yields significantly more positive HRQOL scores for all of the generic HRQOL measures except for the QWB-SA. The magnitude of effects was clearly important, with some differences as large as a half-standard deviation. These findings confirm the importance of considering mode of administration when interpreting HRQOL scores.