Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the sensitivity to change of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Setting: The Women's Center, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. Design: Postal survey to 66 women undergoing conservative surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. The EHP-30 and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) were administered 2 weeks before the operation, and 4 months post-operatively. At T2 a transition question was included to evaluate changes in patients health status. To evaluate responsiveness effect sizes, standardised response means, the index of responsiveness and the minimally and clinically important differences were calculated. Results: Forty (66.6%) patients returned the questionnaires at time 1 and 2. Overall less responsive effect size scores were found for the SF-36 (0.1–0.5) compared to the EHP-30 (−0.1–1.1) for all patients who had undergone treatment. Minimally important differences and the index of responsiveness were overall higher for the EHP-30 (0.4–2.0) compared to the SF-36 (0.1–1.0). Change scores for four of the five scales were significantly correlated with women's responses to the transition question. Conclusions: Results suggest that the EHP-30 is sensitive to change. Its application in clinical trials should prove beneficial in assessing the impact of medical and surgical interventions upon quality of life for women with endometriosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189.
Streiner DL, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Jones G, Kennedy S, Barnard A, Wong J, Jenkinson C. Development of an endometriosis quality-of-life instrument: The Endometriosis Health Pro.le-30. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 258-264.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171-178.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
Sutton CJG, Hill D. Laser laparoscopy in the treatment of endometriosis: A 5-year study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 181-185.
Low YL, Edelmann RJ, Sutton C. A psychological profile of endometriosis patients in comparison to patients with pelvic pain of other origins. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37: 111-116.
Daniell JF. Laser laparoscopy for endometriosis. Colposcopy Gynecol Laser Surg 1984; 1: 185-192.
Donnez J. Today's treatments: Medical, surgical and in partnership. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1999; 1: S5-S13.
Adamson GD, Hurd SJ, Pasta DJ, Rodriguez BD. Laparoscopic endometriosis treatment: Is it better? Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 35-44.
Sutton CJ. What can we expect from the surgical management of endometriosis? Br J Clin Pract Suppl 1991; 72: 33-42.
Ware JE, Sherbourne EC. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey 1: Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483.
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28: 263-642.
Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 429-436.
Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Ware JE. The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care 1999; 37: MS10-MS22.
Jenkinson C. Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes. London: UCL Press, 1994.
Colwell H, Mathias SD, Pasta DJ, Henning JM, Steege JF. A health-related quality of life instrument for symptomatic patients with endometriosis: A validation study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 47-55.
Guyatt GH, Feeny D, Patrick D. Proceedings of the international conference on the measurement of quality of life as an outcome in clinical trials: Postscript. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 12: 266s-269s.
Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 221-226.
Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perin EB. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979-992.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaviourial Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Guyatt GH, Eagle DJ, Sackett B. Measuring quality of life in the frail elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1433-1444.
Bodner C, Garratt AM, Ratcliffe J, Macdonald LM, Penney GC. Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis: Results of the gynaecology audit project in Scotland. Health Bull (Edinb) 1997; 55: 109-117.
Fitzpatrick R. Applications of health status measures. In: Jenkinson, C (ed.), Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes, London: UCL Press, 1994: 27-41.
Paterson C, Langan CE, McKaig GA, et al. Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 521-527.
Garry R, Clayton R, Hawe J. The Effect of endometriosis and its radical laparoscopic excision on quality of life indicators. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 107: 44-54.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, G., Jenkinson, C. & Kennedy, S. Evaluating the responsiveness of the endometriosis health profile questionnaire: The EHP-30. Qual Life Res 13, 705–713 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021316.79349.af
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021316.79349.af