Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

01-04-2010 | Original Paper

A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures

Authors: John E. Brazier, Yaling Yang, Aki Tsuchiya, Donna Louise Rowen

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 2/2010

Abstract

Clinical studies use a wide variety of health status measures to measure health related quality of life, many of which cannot be used in cost-effectiveness analysis using cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Mapping is one solution that is gaining popularity as it enables health state utility values to be predicted for use in cost per QALY analysis when no preference-based measure has been included in the study. This paper presents a systematic review of current practice in mapping between non-preference based measures and generic preference-based measures, addressing feasibility and validity, circumstances under which it should be considered and lessons for future mapping studies. This review found 30 studies reporting 119 different models. Performance of the mappings functions in terms of goodness-of-fit and prediction was variable and unable to be generalised across instruments. Where generic measures are not regarded as appropriate for a condition, mapping does not solve this problem. Most testing in the literature occurs at the individual level yet the main purpose of these functions is to predict mean values for subgroups of patients, hence more testing is required.

Spilker, B. (ed.): Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. Raven, New York (1990)

Revicki, D.A., Leidy, N.K., Brennan-Diemer, F., Sorenson, S., Togias, A.: Integrating patients’ preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 114, 998–1007 (1998)CrossRef

Brooks, R.: Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 54–72 (1996)CrossRef

Feeny, D., Wu, L., Eng, K.: Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and health utilities index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual. Life Res. 13, 1659–1670 (2004)CrossRef

Kaplan, R.M., Anderson, J.P.: A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Services Res. 23, 203–235 (1998)

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)CrossRef

Marra, C.A., Woolcott, J.C., Kopec, J.A., Shojania, K.I., Offer, R., Brazier, J., Esdaile, J.M., Anis, A.H.: A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HU12, HU13, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1571–1582 (2005)CrossRef

Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, Q.A.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 103–105 (2004)CrossRef

DA, F.: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Food and Drug Administration, USA (2006)

10.

Fryback, D.G., Dasbach, E.J., Klein, R., Klein, B.E., Dorn, N., Peterson, K., Martin, P.A.: The Beaver dam health outcomes survey: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med. Decis. Mak. 13, 89–102 (1993)CrossRef

11.

Coast, J.: Reprocessing data to form QALYs. Brit. Med. J. 305, 87–90 (1992)CrossRef

12.

Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., Parkin, D.: Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ-5D indices. HEDS discussion paper (2002)

13.

Buxton, M.J., Lacey, L.A., Feagan, B.G., Oliver, R.: Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationship between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohan’s Disease Activity Index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health 10, 214–220 (2007)CrossRef

14.

Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J.: Mapping the Minnesota living with Heart Failure Questionnaire to the EQ-5D Index. Unpublished manuscript (2002)

15.

Gray, A., Clarke, P., Rivero-Arias, O.: Estimating the association between SF-36 responses and EQ-5D utility values by direct mapping. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), Paris, January 2004

16.

Gray, A., Rivero-Arias, O., Clarke, P.M.: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med. Decis. Mak. 26, 18–29 (2006)CrossRef

17.

Kaambwa, B., Bryan, S., Barton, P., Parker, H., Martin, G.: Relationship between the EuroQol-5d and Barthel Index—examining the use of proxy outcome measures for older people. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), New York, July 2006

18.

Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 26, 401–409 (2006)CrossRef

19.

Roberts, J., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A.: Mapping the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire to SF6D indices stage2: final results. Unpublished manuscript (2005)

20.

Brazier, J., Kolotkin, R.L., Crosby, R.D., Williams, G.R.: Estimating a preference-based single index for the impact of weight on quality of life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 7, 484–496 (2004)CrossRef

21.

Walters, S., Brazier, J.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1523–1532 (2005)CrossRef

22.

Ara, R., Brazier, J.: Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health (forthcoming)

23.

Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Roberts, J.: Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D Index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 27 (2009)CrossRef

24.

Brazier, J., Czoski-Murray, C., Roberts, J., Brown, M., Symonds, T., Kelleher, C.: Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med. Decis. Mak. 28, 113–126 (2008)CrossRef

25.

Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., Young, Y.: Deriving a preference-based measure for health from the AQLQ. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), London, January 2006

26.

Briggs, A., Clark, T., Wolstenholme, J., Clarke, P.: Missing presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 12, 377–392 (2003)CrossRef

27.

Kharroubi, S., Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.R., O’Hagan, A.: Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 26, 597–612 (2007)CrossRef

28.

Bansback, N., Marra, C., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A., Guh, D., Hammond, T., Brazier, J.: Using the Health Assessment Questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 57, 963–971 (2007)CrossRef

29.

Bartman, B.A., Rosen, M.J., Bradham, D.D., Weissman, J., Hochberg, M., Revicki, D.A.: Relationship between health status and utility measures in older Claudicants. Qual. Life Res. 7, 67–73 (1998)CrossRef

30.

Bosch, J.L., Hunink, M.G.M.: The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med. Decis. Mak. 16, 217–225 (1996)CrossRef

31.

Brennan, D.S., Spencer, A.J.: Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values. BMC Health Services Research 6 (2006)

32.

Dixon, S., McEwan, P., Currie, C.J.: Estimating the health utility of treatment in adults with growth hormone deficiency. J. Outcome Res. 7, 1–12 (2003)

33.

Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J.: Mapping the Nepean Dyspepsia Index and patient self-assessed (clinical) data to SF-6D preference weights. Unpublished manuscript (2002)

34.

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J.: Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments. Med. Care 41, 1277–1283 (2003)CrossRef

35.

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J., Jia, H.: Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24, 247–254 (2004)CrossRef

36.

Fryback, D.G., Lawrence, W.F., Martin, P.A., Klein, R., Klein, B.E.K.: Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam health outcomes study. Med. Decis. Mak. 17, 1–9 (1997)CrossRef

37.

Grootendorst, P., Marshall, D., Pericak, D., Bellamy, N., Feeny, D., Torrance, G.W.: A model to estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores form WOMAC Index scores in the patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J. Rheumatol. 34, 534–542 (2007)

38.

Kulkarni, A.V.: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59, 176–184 (2006)CrossRef

39.

Lauridsen, J., Christiansen, T., Hakkinen, U.: Measuring inequality in self-reported helath—discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data. Health Econ. 13, 725–732 (2004)CrossRef

40.

Lawrence, W.F., Fleishman, J.A.: Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24, 160–169 (2004)CrossRef

41.

Longo, M., Cohen, D., Hood, K., Robling, M.: Deriving an ‘Enhanced’ EuroQol from SF-36. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), Nottingham, July 2000

42.

Longworth, L., Buxton, M.J., Sculpher, M., Smith, A.H.: Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 347–353 (2005)CrossRef

43.

Mortimer, D., Segal, L., Harris, A., Hawthorne, G.: Item-based versus subscale-based mappings from the SF36 to a preference-based quality of life measure. Value Health 10, 398–407 (2007)CrossRef

44.

Nichol, M.B., Sengupta, N., Globe, D.R.: Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med. Decis. Mak. 21, 105–112 (2001)

45.

Segal, L., Day, S.E., Chapman, A.B., Osborne, R.H.: Can we reduce the burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. Med. J. Aust. 180, S11–S17 (2004)

46.

Sengupta, N., Nichol, M.B., Wu, J., Globe, D.: Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med. Care 42, 927–937 (2004)CrossRef

47.

Tsuchiya, A.: The estimation of a preference-based single index for the IBS-QoL. Unpublished manuscript (2006)

48.

Van Doorslaer, E., Jones, A.M.: Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement. J. Health Econ. 22, 61–87 (2003)CrossRef

Title: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures
Authors: John E. Brazier
Yaling Yang
Aki Tsuchiya
Donna Louise Rowen
Publication date: 01-04-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

In which ways do unhealthy people older than 50 exit the labour market in France?

A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium

Hospital costs for treatment of acute heart failure: economic analysis of the REVIVE II study

A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden

Primary care delivery, risk pooling and economic efficiency

Inpatient length of stay: a finite mixture modeling analysis