Mapping between 6 Multiattribute Utility Instruments

Abstract

Background: Cost-utility analyses commonly employ a multiattribute utility (MAU) instrument to estimate the health state utilities, which are needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Different MAU instruments predict significantly different utilities, which makes comparison of results from different evaluation studies problematical. Aim: This article presents mapping functions (“crosswalks”) from 6 MAU instruments (EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, Health Utilities Index 3 [HUI 3], 15D, Quality of Well-Being [QWB], and Assessment of Quality of Life 8D [AQoL-8D]) to each of the other 5 instruments in the study: a total of 30 mapping functions. Methods: Data were obtained from a multi-instrument comparison survey of the public and patients in 7 disease areas conducted in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, and United States). The 8022 respondents were administered each of the 6 study instruments. Mapping equations between each instrument pair were estimated using 4 econometric techniques: ordinary least squares, generalized linear model, censored least absolute deviations, and, for the first time, a robust MM-estimator. Results: Goodness-of-fit indicators for each of the results are within the range of published studies. Transformations reduced discrepancies between predicted utilities. Incremental utilities, which determine the value of quality-related health benefits, are almost perfectly aligned at the sample means. Conclusion: Transformations presented here align the measurement scales of MAU instruments. Their use will increase confidence in the comparability of evaluation studies, which have employed different MAU instruments.

Keywords

cost-utility analysis cost-effectiveness analysis health-related quality of life utility mapping

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Richardson

McKie

Bariola

. Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer

, ed. Online Encyclopedia of Health Economics. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science; 2014.

Fryback

Palta

Cherepanov

Bolt

Kim

. Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):5–15.

Seymour

McNamee

Scott

Tinelli

. Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ. 2010;19:683–96.

Wailoo

Davis

Tosh

. The incorporation of health benefits in cost utility analysis using the EQ-5D: report by the Decision Support Unit 2010. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/PDFs%20of%20reports/DSU%20EQ5D%20final%20report%20-%20submitted.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2015.

Drummond

Brixner

Gold

Kind

McGuire

Nord

. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(1):S31–S5.

Rowen

Brazier

Tsuchiya

Alava

. Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):715–29.

Hernández Alava

Brazier

Rowen

Tsuchiya

. Common scale valuations across different preference-based measures: estimation using rank data. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(6):839–52.

Mortimer

Segal

. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):66–89.

Brazier

Yang

Tsuchiya

Rowen

. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.

10.

Dakin

. HERC Database of Mapping Studies, Version 1.0 [last updated 14January2013]. Available from: http://www.herc.ox.ac.uk/downloads/mappingdatabase. Accessed 28 August 2013.

11.

Rowen

Brazier

Tsuchiya

Alava

. Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue scale: a feasibility study. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):715–29.

12.

Richardson

Khan

Iezzi

Maxwell

. Cross-National Comparison of Twelve Quality of Life Instruments: MIC Paper 1: Background, Questions, Instruments, Research Paper 76. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2012.

13.

Rabin

Oemar

Oppe

Janssen

Herdman

. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/UserGuide_EQ-5D-5L.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2015.

14.

Powell

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

15.

Cameron

Trivedi

. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

16.

Young

Mellick

Scuffham

. Mapping of the PDQ-39 to EQ-5D scores in patients with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1065–72.

17.

Kaambwa

Billingham

Bryan

. Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(2):231–41.

18.

Yohai

. High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. Ann Stat. 1987;15(2):642–56.

19.

Verardi

Croux

. Robust regression in Stata. Stata J. 2009;9(3):439–53.

20.

Fox

. Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.

21.

Cheung

Tan

LCS

Lau

Luo

. Mapping the eight-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(9):1173–81.

22.

Askew

Swartz

Xing

. Mapping FACT-melanoma quality-of-life scores to EQ-5D health utility weights. Value Health. 2011;14(6):900–6.

23.

Dakin

Petrou

Haggard

Benge

Williamson

. Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 otitis media questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(1):65–80.

24.

Gillard

Devine

Varon

Liu

Sullivan

. Mapping from disease-specific measures to health-state utility values in individuals with migraine. Value Health. 2012;15(3):485–94.

25.

McGraw

Wong

. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46.

26.

Kay

Tolley

Colayco

Khalaf

Anderson

Globe

. Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire among patients with neurogenic and idiopathic overactive bladder. Value Health. 2013;16(2):394–402.

27.

Willmott

Matsuura

. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Res. 2005;30:79–82.

28.

Richardson

Khan

Iezzi

Maxwell

. Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, Research Papers 78, 80–83, 85. MIC Report: 2: Australia; 3: UK; 4: USA; 5: Canada; 6: Norway; 7: Germany. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2012.

29.

Richardson

Khan

Iezzi

Maxwell

. Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments [published online 26August2014]. Med Decis Making.

30.

Payakachat

Summers

Plei

. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):801–13.

31.

Richardson

Sinha

Iezzi

Khan

. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2395–404.

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

0.02 MB

0.78 MB

0.11 MB