Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2015

Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects

Authors: Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi, Munir A. Khan

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

Purpose

Health state utilities measured by the major multi-attribute utility instruments differ. Understanding the reasons for this is important for the choice of instrument and for research designed to reconcile these differences. This paper investigates these reasons by explaining pairwise differences between utilities derived from six multi-attribute utility instruments in terms of (1) their implicit measurement scales; (2) the structure of their descriptive systems; and (3) ‘micro-utility effects’, scale-adjusted differences attributable to their utility formula.

Methods

The EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D and AQoL-8D were administered to 8,019 individuals. Utilities and unweighted values were calculated using each instrument. Scale effects were determined by the linear relationship between utilities, the effect of the descriptive system by comparison of scale-adjusted values and ‘micro-utility effects’ by the unexplained difference between utilities and values.

Results

Overall, 66 % of the differences between utilities was attributable to the descriptive systems, 30.3 % to scale effects and 3.7 % to micro-utility effects.

Discussion

Results imply that the revision of utility algorithms will not reconcile differences between instruments. The dominating importance of the descriptive system highlights the need for researchers to select the instrument most capable of describing the health states relevant for a study.

Conclusions

Reconciliation of inconsistent utilities produced by different instruments must focus primarily upon the content of the descriptive system. Utility weights primarily determine the measurement scale. Other differences, attributable to utility formula, are comparatively unimportant.

Available only for authorised users

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

WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/ Accessed 27 July 2013.

Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J. (2010). Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370.PubMedCrossRef

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). 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’. Medical Decision Making,. doi:10.1177/0272989X14543107.PubMed

Whitehurst, D. G. T., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value in Health, 17(5), 570–577.PubMedCrossRef

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC paper 1: Background, questions, instruments, research paper 76. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/researchpaper76.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2013.

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). 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: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/che-publications.html Accessed 25 Jan 2013.

Richardson, J., Cummins, R. A., Olsen, J. A., Kaplan, R., Coast, J., & Schlander, M. (2015). The Multi instrument comparison (MIC) database, http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqol-current. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.

10.

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, 271–292.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

12.

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. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

13.

Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) 8D. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2395–2404.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Rabin, R., Oemar, M., Oppe, M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L User guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group, http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/UserGuide_EQ-5D-5L.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2014.

15.

van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y., 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 in Health, 15, 708–715.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Richardson J., Chen G., Khan M. A., Lezzi A. (2014). Can multi attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decsion Making. Accepted 13 Dec 2014.

Title: Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects
Authors: Jeff Richardson
Angelo Iezzi
Munir A. Khan
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Erratum to: 21st Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research

Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples

Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures

Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test

Testing parent dyad interchangeability in the parent proxy-report of PedsQL™ 4.0: a differential item functioning analysis

Illness perceptions mediate the relationship between bowel symptom severity and health-related quality of life in IBS patients