School of Health and Social Development, Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Qual Life Res. 2018 Nov;27(11):2873-2884. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1936-y. Epub 2018 Jul 13.
Wellbeing measures have been proposed for inclusion in economic evaluation to measure the effect of depression and compensate for shortcomings of existing multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs). The aims of this study were to identify dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and wellbeing that are most affected by depression and to examine the extent to which these are captured by MAUIs.
Data were used from the Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Dimensions of HRQoL (SF-36v2 and AQoL-8D dimensions), capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A), and subjective wellbeing (including PWI, SWLS, and IHS) were identified that distinguished most individuals with depression from a healthy public. The extent to which these dimensions explain the content of five existing MAUIs (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI-3, and SF-6D) was examined using regression analyses. Additionally, the sensitivity of all MAUIs was also assessed towards depression-specific symptoms measured by DASS-21 and K-10.
The sample consisted of 917 individuals with self-reported depression and 1760 healthy subjects. Dimensions that distinguished most individuals with depression from the healthy group (effect size > 2) included AQoL-8D coping, AQoL-8D happiness, AQoL-8D self-worth, ICECAP-A, SF-36 mental health, and SF-36 social functioning. The AQoL-8D was most sensitive to the dimensions above as well as towards the depression-specific measures, the K10, DASS-S, and DASS-D.
This study has shown that psychosocial dimensions of HRQoL have the greatest ability to capture the impact of depression when compared with dimensions of capability wellbeing and SWB. Some MAUIs, such as the AQoL-8D, are sensitive to most distinguishing dimensions of HRQoL and wellbeing, which may obviate the need for supplementary wellbeing instruments.
为了衡量抑郁的影响并弥补现有多属性效用工具(MAUIs)的不足,已提出将幸福感衡量标准纳入经济评估中。本研究的目的是确定受抑郁影响最大的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和幸福感维度,并检验 MAUIs 对这些维度的捕捉程度。
使用多仪器比较研究的数据。确定了 SF-36v2 和 AQoL-8D 维度的 HRQoL 维度、能力幸福感(ICECAP-A)和主观幸福感(包括 PWI、SWLS 和 IHS),这些维度将大多数抑郁症患者与健康人群区分开来。使用回归分析检验这些维度在多大程度上解释了五个现有 MAUIs(15D、AQoL-8D、EQ-5D-5L、HUI-3 和 SF-6D)的内容。此外,还评估了所有 MAUIs 对 DASS-21 和 K-10 测量的特定于抑郁的症状的敏感性。
样本包括 917 名自我报告患有抑郁症的个体和 1760 名健康个体。将大多数抑郁症患者与健康组区分开来的维度(效应大小>2)包括 AQoL-8D 应对能力、AQoL-8D 幸福感、AQoL-8D 自我价值感、ICECAP-A、SF-36 心理健康和 SF-36 社会功能。AQoL-8D 对上述维度以及对特定于抑郁的测量(K10、DASS-S 和 DASS-D)最为敏感。
本研究表明,与能力幸福感和 SWB 维度相比,HRQoL 的心理社会维度最能捕捉抑郁的影响。一些 MAUIs,如 AQoL-8D,对大多数区分 HRQoL 和幸福感的维度都很敏感,这可能无需补充幸福感工具。