Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 8/2013

01-08-2013 | Leading Article

Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities

Authors: Christopher McCabe, Richard Edlin, David Meads, Chantelle Brown, Samer Kharroubi

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

The construction of mapping models is an increasingly popular mechanism for obtaining health state utility data to inform economic evaluations in health care. There is great variation in the sophistication of the methods utilized but to date very little discussion of the appropriate theoretical framework to guide the design and evaluation of these models. In this paper, we argue that recognizing mapping models as a form of indirect health state valuation allows the use of the framework described by Dolan for the measurement of social preferences over health. Using this framework, we identify substantial concerns with the method for valuing health states that is implicit in indirect utility models (IUMs), the conflation of two sets of respondents’ values in such models, and the lack of a structured and statistically reasonable approach to choosing which states to value and how many observations per state to require in the estimation dataset. We also identify additional statistical challenges associated with clustering and censoring in the datasets for IUMs, additional to those attributable to the descriptive systems, and a potentially significant problem with the systematic understatement of uncertainty in predictions from IUMs. Whilst recognizing that IUMs appear to meet the needs of reimbursement organizations that use quality-adjusted life years in their appraisal processes, we argue that current proposed quality standards are inadequate and that IUMs are neither robust nor appropriate mechanisms for estimating utilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Collinson FJ, Gregory, W. McCabe, C et al. The STAR TRIAL protocol: a randomized multi-stage II/III study of sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first line treatment of local advanced/metastatic renal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;598:1–11. Collinson FJ, Gregory, W. McCabe, C et al. The STAR TRIAL protocol: a randomized multi-stage II/III study of sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first line treatment of local advanced/metastatic renal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;598:1–11.
2.
go back to reference Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Abrams KR, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making in health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2012.CrossRef Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Abrams KR, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making in health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2012.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
4.
6.
go back to reference Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.PubMedCrossRef Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, Gaugris S. Comparison of generic, condition specific and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1059–68.PubMedCrossRef Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, Gaugris S. Comparison of generic, condition specific and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1059–68.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.PubMedCrossRef Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, Brazier JE. Health state values for the HUI2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ. 2005;14:231–44. McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, Brazier JE. Health state values for the HUI2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ. 2005;14:231–44.
11.
go back to reference Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological checklist. Med Decis Mak. Online First March 22, 2013. p. 1–323. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological checklist. Med Decis Mak. Online First March 22, 2013. p. 1–323.
12.
go back to reference Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16:202–10.PubMedCrossRef Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16:202–10.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV; 2000. Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV; 2000.
15.
go back to reference Brazier J, Akerhurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201-8. Brazier J, Akerhurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201-8.
16.
go back to reference Gold MR, Segel JE, Russell LB, Weinsten MC. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Gold MR, Segel JE, Russell LB, Weinsten MC. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
18.
go back to reference Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, et al. Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res. 2008;43(1 Pt 1):327–39.PubMed Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, et al. Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res. 2008;43(1 Pt 1):327–39.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Craig BM, Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):169–74.PubMedCrossRef Craig BM, Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):169–74.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Austin PC. A comparison of methods for analyzing health related quality-of-life measures. Value Health. 2002;5(4):329–37.PubMedCrossRef Austin PC. A comparison of methods for analyzing health related quality-of-life measures. Value Health. 2002;5(4):329–37.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kharroubi SA, McCabe C. Modelling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:875–87. Kharroubi SA, McCabe C. Modelling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:875–87.
24.
go back to reference Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, Soares M, Spackman DE, Youn J. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16. Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, Soares M, Spackman DE, Youn J. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16.
25.
go back to reference van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.PubMedCrossRef van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities
Authors
Christopher McCabe
Richard Edlin
David Meads
Chantelle Brown
Samer Kharroubi
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2013
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0071-4

Other articles of this Issue 8/2013

PharmacoEconomics 8/2013 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

A Choice That Matters?