Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background Health status measures provide a numeric score representing a profile of health status across several domains, such as physical and mental health. The SF-12 and its longer form, the SF-36, are examples of generic health status measures. Although these Background. Previous mapping algorithms estimating EQ-5D index scores from the SF-12 were based on preferences from a UK community sample. However, preferences based on the general US population are most appropriate for costeffectiveness analyses done from the societal perspective in the United States. Objective. To provide a mapping algorithm for estimating EQ-5D index scores from the SF-12 based on a nationally representative sample and using preferences based on the general US population.Methods. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2002 and 2000 data were used as independent derivation and validation sets to estimate the relationship between SF-12 scores and EQ-5D index scores, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidity burden. Prediction equations for end-users who only have access to SF-12 scores were derived and compared. The empirical performance of censored least absolute deviations (CLAD), Tobit, and ordinary least squares (OLS) analytic methods were compared by calculating the mean prediction error in the validation set.Results. The fully specified CLAD model resulted in the lowest mean prediction error, followed by OLS and Tobit. The CLAD prediction equation based only on SF-12 scores performed better than the fully specified OLS and Tobit models.Conclusion. The current research provides an algorithm for mapping EQ-5D index scores from the SF-12. This algorithm may provide analysts with an avenue to obtain appropriate preference-based health-related quality-of-life scores for use in cost-effectiveness analyses when only SF-12 data are available.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gold MR , Siegel JE , Russell LB , Weinstein MC , eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Drummond MF . Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1997.

Neumann PJ , Goldie SJ , Weinstein MC . Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.

Von Neumann J , Morgenstern O . Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1947.

Torrance GW , Thomas WH , Sackett DL . A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118–133.

Froberg DG , Kane RL . Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459–471.

Feeny D , Furlong W , Boyle M , Torrance GW . Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.

The EuroQol Group . EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

Brooks R . EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.

10.

Kaplan RM , Anderson JP . A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res. 1988;23:203–235.

11.

Ware JJ , Kosinski M , Keller S . SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 3rd ed. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric; 1998.

12.

Franks P , Lubetkin EI , Gold MR , Tancredi DJ , Jia H . Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:247–254.

13.

Lawrence WF , Fleishman JA . Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:160–169.

14.

Dolan P . Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.

15.

Johnson JA , Luo N , Shaw JW , Kind P , Coons SJ . Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care. 2005;43:221–228.

16.

Shaw JW , Johnson JA , Coons SJ . US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–220.

17.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Puf Documentation Files. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Available at: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/PUFFiles/H52/H52doc.htm. Accessed 10 November 2003.

18.

US Health Care Financing Administration . The International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification: ICD-9-CM. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1980.

19.

Elixhauser A , Andrews RM , Fox S . Clinical Classifications for Health Policy Research: Discharge Statistics by Principal Diagnosis and Procedure. AHCPR Publication No. 93-0043. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Policy and Research; 1993.

20.

McDowell I , Newell C . Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

21.

The EuroQol Group. Available at: http://www.euroqol.org/download/ref.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2003.

22.

Sullivan PW , Lawrence WF Jr , Ghushchyan V . A national catalogue of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the US Med Care. 2005;43:736–749.

23.

Sullivan PW , Ghushchyan V . Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:410–420.

24.

Austin PC . Bayesian extensions of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:152–162.

25.

Green WH . Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.

26.

Maddala GS . Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

27.

Powell J . Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econometrics. 1984;25:303–325.

28.

Clarke P , Gray A , Holman R . Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making. 2002;22:340–349.

29.

Austin PC . A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value Health. 2002;5:329–337.

30.

Petersen D, Waldman D. The treatment of heteroscedasticity in the limited dependent variable model. Mimeo. November 1981.

31.

32.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Computing Standard Errors for MEPS Estimates. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed September 2003.

33.

Briggs AH . Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479–500.

34.

Gold MR , Franks P , McCoy KI , Fryback DG . Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care. 1998;36:778–792.

35.

Macran S , Weatherly H , Kind P . Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003;41:218–231.

36.

Luo N , Chew LH , Fong KY , et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:2268–2274.

37.

Bosch JL , Hunink MG . Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:591–601.

38.

Bell CM , Chapman RH , Stone PW , Sandberg EA , Neumann PJ . An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:288–294.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB