MRC Midlands Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom ; Health Economics Unit, Health and Population Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Health Economics Unit, Health and Population Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e85287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085287. eCollection 2013.
The ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L are two index measures appropriate for use in health research. Assessment of content validity allows understanding of whether a measure captures the most relevant and important aspects of a concept. This paper reports a qualitative assessment of the content validity and appropriateness for use of the eq-5D-5L and ICECAP-A measures, using novel methodology.
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with research professionals in the UK and Australia. Informants were purposively sampled based on their professional role. Data were analysed in an iterative, thematic and constant comparative manner. A two stage investigation--the comparative direct approach--was developed to address the methodological challenges of the content validity research and allow rigorous assessment.
Informants viewed the ICECAP-A as an assessment of the broader determinants of quality of life, but lacking in assessment of health-related determinants. The eq-5D-5L was viewed as offering good coverage of health determinants, but as lacking in assessment of these broader determinants. Informants held some concerns about the content or wording of the Self-care, Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression items (EQ-5D-5L) and the Enjoyment, Achievement and attachment items (ICECAP-A).
Using rigorous qualitative methodology the results suggest that the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L hold acceptable levels of content validity and are appropriate for use in health research. This work adds expert opinion to the emerging body of research using patients and public to validate these measures.
ICECAP-A 和 EQ-5D-5L 是两种适用于健康研究的指数衡量标准。评估内容效度可以帮助理解一个衡量标准是否能捕捉到一个概念最相关和最重要的方面。本文报告了一种使用新方法对 EQ-5D-5L 和 ICECAP-A 衡量标准的内容效度和适用性进行定性评估的结果。
对英国和澳大利亚的研究专业人员进行了深入的半结构化访谈。根据他们的专业角色，有针对性地抽取了受访者。数据分析采用迭代、主题和恒比的方法进行。开发了一种两阶段调查——比较直接方法——以解决内容有效性研究的方法学挑战，并允许进行严格评估。
受访者认为 ICECAP-A 是对生活质量更广泛决定因素的评估，但缺乏对健康相关决定因素的评估。EQ-5D-5L 被认为对健康决定因素有很好的涵盖，但缺乏对这些更广泛决定因素的评估。受访者对 EQ-5D-5L 的自我护理、疼痛/不适和焦虑/抑郁项目以及 ICECAP-A 的享受、成就和依恋项目的内容或措辞存在一些担忧。
使用严格的定性方法，结果表明 ICECAP-A 和 EQ-5D-5L 具有可接受的内容效度水平，适用于健康研究。这项工作为使用患者和公众来验证这些衡量标准的新兴研究领域增加了专家意见。
