Reference bias: Presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised cross-over trial

Steven McPhail, Elaine Beller, Terry Haines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
53 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their self-report.Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors.Results: Overall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered.Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1477146
JournalHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes
Volume8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2010

Fingerprint

Cross-Over Studies
Quality of Life
Health
Self Report
Patient-Centered Care
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Research

Cite this

@article{9e35b0578d2d48189b787cd074df9ab8,
title = "Reference bias: Presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised cross-over trial",
abstract = "Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their self-report.Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors.Results: Overall 106/151 (70{\%}) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49{\%}) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77{\%}) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66{\%}) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95{\%}) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered.Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning.",
author = "Steven McPhail and Elaine Beller and Terry Haines",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/1477-7525-8-146",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "Health and Quality of Life Outcomes",
issn = "1477-7525",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

}

Reference bias : Presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised cross-over trial. / McPhail, Steven; Beller, Elaine; Haines, Terry.

In: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol. 8, 1477146, 01.12.2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reference bias

T2 - Presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised cross-over trial

AU - McPhail, Steven

AU - Beller, Elaine

AU - Haines, Terry

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their self-report.Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors.Results: Overall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered.Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning.

AB - Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their self-report.Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors.Results: Overall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered.Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649535901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1477-7525-8-146

DO - 10.1186/1477-7525-8-146

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

JF - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

SN - 1477-7525

M1 - 1477146

ER -