Start Date

22-5-2012 4:30 PM

End Date

22-5-2012 6:00 PM

Description

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the health utility of UI in women as derived from the EQ-5D with the gold standard, the Standard Gamble. The secondary aim of this study was to compare health utility values of affected patients to healthy controls.

Materials and Methods: Clinical diagnosis was categorized as normal, stress, mixed or urge urinary incontinence. Healthy controls were read a scenario for stress or mixed UI. All subjects completed the Sandvik Severity Index (SSI), EQ-5D, and Standard Gamble (SG) conversation.

Results: 50 healthy controls and 119 affected subjects were recruited. The mean utility value for incontinence varied based on method: EQ-5D (0.78 + 0.17) and SG (0.85 + 0.20). There was a significant difference between utility scores derived from SG and EQ-5D (p=0.0004). This significant difference was maintained in the subset of women with SUI: EQ-5D (0.81 + 0.16), SG (0.87 + 0.18), p=0.028; but not in women with MUI or UUI. When comparing healthy controls to women with SUI, there were significant differences in the utility values derived by SG (0.76 + 0.26 vs. 0.87 + 0.18, p=0.07) but not by EQ-5D. When comparing healthy controls to women with MUI, there was also a significant difference in the utility derived by SG (0.92 + 0.10 vs. 0.75 + 0.21, p=0.01) but not by EQ-5D. SSI scores moderately correlated with SG utility values and strongly correlated with EQ-5D utility values. Logistic regression analysis showed that utility values were unaffected by age and menopausal status.

Conclusion: This study suggests that using the EQ-5D to quantify the utility of UI may over-estimate the degree of bother when compared to SG assessment. This is important because the SG process more closely approximates the decision to undergo surgery. Relying on the EQ-5D to assess health utilities in women with UI may not be valid.

Creative Commons License


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 
May 22nd, 4:30 PM May 22nd, 6:00 PM

Understanding Health Utilities in Women with Urinary Incontinence

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the health utility of UI in women as derived from the EQ-5D with the gold standard, the Standard Gamble. The secondary aim of this study was to compare health utility values of affected patients to healthy controls.

Materials and Methods: Clinical diagnosis was categorized as normal, stress, mixed or urge urinary incontinence. Healthy controls were read a scenario for stress or mixed UI. All subjects completed the Sandvik Severity Index (SSI), EQ-5D, and Standard Gamble (SG) conversation.

Results: 50 healthy controls and 119 affected subjects were recruited. The mean utility value for incontinence varied based on method: EQ-5D (0.78 + 0.17) and SG (0.85 + 0.20). There was a significant difference between utility scores derived from SG and EQ-5D (p=0.0004). This significant difference was maintained in the subset of women with SUI: EQ-5D (0.81 + 0.16), SG (0.87 + 0.18), p=0.028; but not in women with MUI or UUI. When comparing healthy controls to women with SUI, there were significant differences in the utility values derived by SG (0.76 + 0.26 vs. 0.87 + 0.18, p=0.07) but not by EQ-5D. When comparing healthy controls to women with MUI, there was also a significant difference in the utility derived by SG (0.92 + 0.10 vs. 0.75 + 0.21, p=0.01) but not by EQ-5D. SSI scores moderately correlated with SG utility values and strongly correlated with EQ-5D utility values. Logistic regression analysis showed that utility values were unaffected by age and menopausal status.

Conclusion: This study suggests that using the EQ-5D to quantify the utility of UI may over-estimate the degree of bother when compared to SG assessment. This is important because the SG process more closely approximates the decision to undergo surgery. Relying on the EQ-5D to assess health utilities in women with UI may not be valid.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.