Background and purpose: We performed a comprehensive review of all quality-of-life (QOL) estimates for stroke appearing in the peer-reviewed literature between 1985 and 2000. We examine variation in QOL weights and the rigor of methods used to assess QOL and discuss the implications for cost-utility assessment and resource allocation decisions.
Methods: Through a systematic search, we identified 67 articles that met our inclusion criteria. A team of trained researchers read each article and followed detailed guidelines to extract QOL weights and other parameters. This effort yielded 161 QOL estimates for stroke-related health states. All estimates were measured on a 0 to 1 scale, with 0 representing the worst outcome and 1 representing the best.
Results: QOL estimates range from -0.02 to 0.71 (n=67) for major stroke, from 0.12 to 0.81 (n=14) for moderate stroke, from 0.45 to 0.92 (n=38) for minor stroke, and from 0.29 to 0.903 (n=42) for general stroke. Although QOL should decrease with severity, there were many instances in which the QOL for major stroke as reported by one study exceeded the QOL for moderate stroke as reported by another. The same reversal was found for moderate and minor stroke, and it occurred even when both authors used similar assessment methods and subject populations. Authors of cost-utility and decision analyses rarely base their choice of QOL weights on their own primary data (19%). When obtaining weights from secondary sources, some authors (23%) chose QOL weights for a severity of stroke that did not match the severity for which they sought data.
Conclusions: QOL estimates for stroke vary greatly and are not always estimated in sound fashion. This impedes the comparability and quality of the cost-effectiveness studies that use these QOL weights and hampers good resource allocation decisions.