Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

21-12-2015

Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D

Authors: Thor Gamst-Klaussen, Gang Chen, Admassu N. Lamu, Jan Abel Olsen

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2016

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Purpose

Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.

Methods

Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.

Results

Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.

Conclusion

Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments.

previous article Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report

next article Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: The basics. Value in Health, 12, S5–S9. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x.CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: OUP Oxford.

Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.PubMedCentral

Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In C. Aj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier Science.CrossRef

Wisloff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z.CrossRefPubMed

Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66–89. doi:10.1177/0272989x07309642.CrossRefPubMed

Chen, G., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Richardson, J. (2015). Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making,. doi:10.1177/0272989x15578127.

Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J. S. (2010). Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15. doi:10.1177/0272989x09347016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Alava, M. H. (2012). Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: A feasibility study. Health Economics, 21(6), 715–729. doi:10.1002/hec.1740.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Seymour, J., McNamee, P., Scott, A., & Tinelli, M. (2010). Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Economics, 19(6), 683–696. doi:10.1002/hec.1505.PubMed

12.

Richardson, J., Kahn, M., Lezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1: Background, questions, instruments. Research paper 76. http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper76.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2014.

13.

Devlin, N., & van Hout, B. (2014). An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Office of Health Economics (OHE), London. http://www.slideshare.net/ScHARR-HEDS/ohe-seminar-5-l-value-set-oct-30-2014-final-version-031114-1. Accessed January 20, 2015.

14.

van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y. S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., et al. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health, 15(5), 708–715. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1993). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. Walker & R. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: Key issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef

19.

Koenker, R., & Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143–156. doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.143.CrossRef

20.

Chen, G., Flynn, T., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Huynh, E., Sawyer, M., et al. (2015). Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: An empirical comparison of the child health utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value Health, 18(4), 432–438. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.014.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Gheorghe, L., & Baculea, S. (2010). Cost-effectiveness of peginterferon alpha-2a and peginterferon alpha-2b combination regimens in genotype-1 naive patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepato-Gastroenterology, 57(101), 939–944.PubMed

Title: Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D
Authors: Thor Gamst-Klaussen
Gang Chen
Admassu N. Lamu
Jan Abel Olsen
Publication date: 21-12-2015
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1212-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Interpretation of Renal Quality of Life Profile scores in routine clinical practice: an aid to treatment decision-making

The EORTC QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaire for colorectal cancer: validation of the Dutch version

Item bank development, calibration and validation for patient-reported outcomes in female urinary incontinence

Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report

Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores

Measuring nonspecific factors in treatment: item banks that assess the healthcare experience and attitudes from the patient’s perspective