Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 7/2016

21.12.2015

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

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

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 7/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

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!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: OUP Oxford. Brazier, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: OUP Oxford.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat 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., 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
4.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
6.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
7.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
8.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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​.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
20.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
Metadaten
Titel
Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D
verfasst von
Thor Gamst-Klaussen
Gang Chen
Admassu N. Lamu
Jan Abel Olsen
Publikationsdatum
21.12.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1212-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2016

Quality of Life Research 7/2016 Zur Ausgabe