Agreement between the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) interview and a paper-administered adaption

Abstract

Background

The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions. To apply this method in clinical trials, a paper-administered alternative would be of interest. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze the agreement between the SEIQoL-DW and a paper questionnaire version (SEIQoL-PF/G).

Methods

In a crossover design, both measures were completed in a random sequence. 104 patients at a heart surgery hospital in Germany were randomly assigned to receive either the SEIQoL-DW or the SEIQoL-PF/G as the first measurement in the sequence. Patients were approached on their earliest stable day after surgery. The average time between both measurements was 1 day (mean 1.3; SD 0.8).

Agreement regarding the indices, ratings, and weightings of nominated life areas (cues) was explored using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Agreement of the SEIQoL indices was defined as acceptable if the LoA did not exceed a threshold of 10 scale points. Data from n = 99 patients were included in the agreement analysis.

Results

Both measures led to similarly nominated cues. The most frequently nominated cues were “physical health” and “family”.

In the Bland-Altman plot, the indices showed a mean of differences of 2 points (95% CI, − 1 to 6). The upper LoA showed a difference of 36 points (95% CI, 30 to 42), and the lower LoA showed a difference of − 31 points (95% CI, − 37 to − 26). Thus, the LoAs and confidence intervals exceeded the predefined threshold. The Bland-Altman plots for the cue levels and cue weights showed similar results.

The SEIQoL-PF/G version showed a tendency for equal weighting of cues, while the weighting procedure of the SEIQoL-DW led to greater variability.

Conclusions

For cardiac surgery patients, use of the current version of the SEIQoL-PF/G as a substitute for the SEIQoL-DW is not recommended.

The current questionnaire weighting method seems to be unable to distinguish weighting for different cues. Therefore, the further design of a weighting method without interviewer support as a paper-administered measure of individual quality of life is desirable.