000285816 001__ 285816
000285816 005__ 20260402150430.0
000285816 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s11136-026-04229-5
000285816 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:41920450
000285816 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0962-9343
000285816 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1573-2649
000285816 037__ $$aDZNE-2026-00352
000285816 041__ $$aEnglish
000285816 082__ $$a100
000285816 1001_ $$00000-0003-1351-9170$$aGoodwin, Elizabeth$$b0
000285816 245__ $$aMeasuring health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: comparing the acceptability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and MSIS-8D.
000285816 260__ $$aCham$$bSpringer Nature Switzerland AG$$c2026
000285816 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000285816 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000285816 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1775134909_16505
000285816 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000285816 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000285816 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000285816 520__ $$aPurpose: Concerns have been raised about the sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, one of the most commonly used preference-based health-related quality of life measures, in the context of multiple sclerosis (MS). In response to these concerns, a condition-specific preference-based measure, the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Eight Dimensions (MSIS-8D), was developed. This research aimed to assess the psychometric and distributional properties of the MSIS-8D compared to the EQ-5D-3L, in people with MS. Methods: Analyses were undertaken using data from the UK MS Register. Both measures were compared in terms of acceptability (missing data), distributional properties (health state frequencies, health state density curves and indices), construct validity in relation to disability, mobility, fatigue, anxiety and depression (discriminative and convergent validity, using ANOVA, independent t-tests and Spearman correlations), and responsiveness to symptom onset and relapse (mean change scores, standardised response means, standardised effect sizes, paired t-tests). Results: The MSIS-8D exhibited superior distributional properties, while the EQ-5D-3L showed greater acceptability. Both measures demonstrated excellent construct validity. Neither measure appeared responsive to symptom onset, and only the MSIS-8D met all criteria for responsiveness when people moved from a non-relapse to a relapse state. Conclusion: Although the MSIS-8D appears to offer superior distributional properties and responsiveness compared to the EQ-5D-3L, the responsiveness of both measures in this analysis was limited. This adds weight to existing concerns about the ability of utility measures used in healthcare decision-making to fully capture treatment effects in MS.
000285816 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353$$a353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)$$cPOF4-353$$fPOF IV$$x0
000285816 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: pub.dzne.de
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aEQ-5D
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aEconomic evaluation
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aHealth-related quality of life
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aMultiple sclerosis
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aPreference-based measures
000285816 650_7 $$2Other$$aPsychometrics
000285816 7001_ $$0P:(DE-2719)2810763$$aMichalowsky, Bernhard$$b1
000285816 7001_ $$00000-0002-2130-4420$$aMiddleton, Rod$$b2
000285816 7001_ $$00000-0002-1336-5899$$aHawton, Annie$$b3
000285816 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2008960-0$$a10.1007/s11136-026-04229-5$$gVol. 35, no. 5, p. 124$$n5$$p124$$tQuality of life research$$v35$$x0962-9343$$y2026
000285816 8564_ $$uhttps://pub.dzne.de/record/285816/files/DZNE-2026-00352.pdf$$yRestricted
000285816 8564_ $$uhttps://pub.dzne.de/record/285816/files/DZNE-2026-00352.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yRestricted
000285816 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588)1065079516$$6P:(DE-2719)2810763$$aDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen$$b1$$kDZNE
000285816 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-350$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lNeurodegenerative Diseases$$vClinical and Health Care Research$$x0
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0430$$2StatID$$aNational-Konsortium$$d2024-12-18$$wger
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)3002$$2StatID$$aDEAL Springer$$d2024-12-18$$wger
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)3002$$2StatID$$aDEAL Springer$$d2024-12-18$$wger
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bQUAL LIFE RES : 2022$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1180$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0130$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSocial Sciences Citation Index$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2024-12-18
000285816 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5$$d2024-12-18
000285816 9201_ $$0I:(DE-2719)5000067$$kAG Michalowsky$$lPatient-Reported Outcomes and Health Economics Research$$x0
000285816 980__ $$ajournal
000285816 980__ $$aEDITORS
000285816 980__ $$aVDBINPRINT
000285816 980__ $$aI:(DE-2719)5000067
000285816 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED