Further validation of the Preference-Based Stroke Index three months after stroke

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the construct validity of the Preference-Based Stroke Index and its value added over a generic measure, the EuroQol-5D-3L at three months after stroke.

Design:

This is a secondary analysis of an existing inception cohort. Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated to test construct validity and Generalized Estimating Equation analysis was conducted to compare the strength of the correlations of the Preference-Based Stroke Index and EuroQol-5D-3L with other measures.

Setting:

Community.

Subjects:

Participants (n = 488) with confirmed diagnosis of stroke hospitalized within 72 hours.

Main measures:

Health-related quality of life was measured using Preference-Based Stroke Index and EuroQol-5D-3L. For validation purposes, the Stroke Impact Scale, Short Form-36 V1, Walking Speed, Two-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination were used. The Barthel Index and Canadian Neurological Scale were used to define known groups.

Results:

Preference-Based Stroke Index correlated moderately with the EuroQol-5D-3L (r = 0.73), Walking Speed (r = 0.68), Two-Minute Walk Test (r = 0.73), and Berg Balance Scale (r = 0.70) and strongly with Stroke Impact Scale Activities of Daily Living (r = 0.80). Correlations were significantly higher for the Preference-Based Stroke Index than EuroQol-5D-3L. Participants with mild stroke had a higher mean Preference-Based Stroke Index score (77.9 ± 20.6) than participants with severe stroke (62.8 ± 20.3). Participants with functional independence had higher Preference-Based Stroke Index (85.7 ± 11.9) than those dependent for activities of daily living (60.8 ± 19.7).

Conclusion:

Preference-Based Stroke Index demonstrated significantly higher construct validity compared to the EuroQol-5D-3L at three months post stroke and can discriminate among known groups.

Keywords

Measurement stroke utility condition specific preference measure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mayo

NE.

Stroke rehabilitation at home. Stroke 2016; 47: 1685–1691.

Teasell

Foley

Bhogal

et al . An evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003; 10(1): 29–58.

EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16(3): 199–208.

Brazier

Roberts

Deverill

The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21(2): 271–292.

Horsman

Furlong

Feeny

et al . The Health Utilities Index (HUI^®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1(1): 54.

Pickard

Johnson

Feeny

DH.

Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005; 14(1): 207–219.

Buck

Jacoby

Massey

et al . Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke 2000; 31(8): 2004–2010.

Whitehead

Ali

Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010; 96: 5–21.

Post

Stiggelbout

Wakker

The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32(6): 1425–1429.

10.

Mayo

Wood-Dauphinee

Ahmed

et al . Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21(5–6): 258–268.

11.

Poissant

Mayo

Wood-Dauphinee

et al . The development and preliminary validation of a Preference-Based Stroke Index (PBSI). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 43.

12.

Finch

Higgins

Wood-Dauphinee

et al . A measure of physical functioning to define stroke recovery at 3 months: preliminary results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(9): 1584–1595.

13.

Duncan

Bode

MinLai

et al . Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(7): 950–963.

14.

Ware

Jr Sherbourne

. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.

15.

Bowden

Balasubramanian

Behrman

et al . Validation of a speed-based classification system using quantitative measures of walking performance poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22(6): 672–675.

16.

Butland

Pang

Gross

et al . Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284(6329): 1607–1608.

17.

Berg

Wood-Dauphinee

Williams

et al . Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 1992; 83(Suppl. 2): 7–11.

18.

Folstein

McHugh

PR.

“Mini-mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12(3): 189–198.

19.

Mayo

NE.

ISOQOL dictionary of quality of life and health outcomes measurement. Milwaukee, WI: ISOQOL, 2015.

20.

Côté

Hachinski

Shurvell

et al . The Canadian Neurological Scale: a preliminary study in acute stroke. Stroke 1986; 17(4): 731–737.

21.

Collin

Wade

Davies

et al . The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10(2): 61–63.

22.

Hopman

Towheed

Anastassiades

et al . Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. CMAJ 2000; 163(3): 265–271.

23.

Bohannon

RW.

Population representative gait speed and its determinants. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2008; 31(2): 49–52.

24.

Bohannon

Wang

Y-C

Gershon

RC.

Two-minute walk test performance by adults 18 to 85 years: normative values, reliability, and responsiveness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96(3): 472–477.

25.

Streiner

Norman

GR.

Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

26.

Mayo

Anderson

Barclay

et al . Getting on with the rest of your life following stroke: a randomized trial of a complex intervention aimed at enhancing life participation post stroke. Clin Rehabil 2015; 29(12): 1198–1211.

27.

Mayo

Aburub

Brouillette

M-J

et al . In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Qual Life Res 2017; 26(3): 601–609.

28.

Pickard

AS.

Is it time to update societal value sets for preference-based measures of health. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33(3): 191–192.