The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009) 195: 170-177. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.057380
© 2009 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barton, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Fowler, D.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barton, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Fowler, D.

Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ–5D

Garry R. Barton, PhD, Jo Hodgekins, BSc and Miranda Mugford, DPhil

School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich

Peter B. Jones, FRCPsych, CAMEO

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, and Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge

Tim Croudace, PhD

Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge

David Fowler, MSc

School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Correspondence: Dr Garry Barton, Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Email: g.barton{at}uea.ac.uk

Declaration of interest

None.

Funding

Funding was provided by a trial platform grant from the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Background

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis includes the EQ–5D; however, this is often not implemented in the area of mental health.

Aims

To assess the appropriateness of using the EQ–5D to measure improvements in mental health.

Method

Seventy-seven participants with psychosis were rated according to the EQ–5D and seven measures of mental health at both pre- and post-intervention. To assess construct validity we compared the (pre-intervention) mean EQ–5D scores for those with milder and more severe scores, according to each of the seven measures. To assess responsiveness we estimated the mean EQ–5D change score for those who improved (post-intervention), according to each of the measures.

Results

The mean EQ–5D score was more favourable for both those with milder scores (mean difference: 0.044 to 0.301) and for those who improved post-intervention (mean change: 0.029 to 0.117).

Conclusions

This suggests the EQ–5D should be considered for use in future cost-effectiveness studies in the area of mental health.


Related articles in BJP:

Highlights of this issue
Kimberlie Dean
BJP 2009 195: A6. [Full Text]