Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Research

Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses

Authors: Stephen P McKenna, Julie Ratcliffe, David M Meads, John E Brazier

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pulmonary Hypertension is a severe and incurable disease with poor prognosis. A suite of new disease-specific measures – the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) – was recently developed for use in this condition. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a preference based measure from the CAMPHOR that could be used in cost-utility analyses.

Methods

Items were selected that covered major issues covered by the CAMPHOR QoL scale (activities, travelling, dependence and communication). These were used to create 36 health states that were valued by 249 people representative of the UK adult population, using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. Data from the TTO interviews were analysed using both aggregate and individual level modelling. Finally, the original CAMPHOR validation data were used to validate the new preference based model.

Results

The predicted health state values ranged from 0.962 to 0.136. The mean level model selected for analyzing the data had good explanatory power (0.936), did not systematically over- or underestimate the observed mean health state values and showed no evidence of auto correlation in the prediction errors. The value of less than 1 reflects a background level of ill health in state 1111, as judged by the respondents. Scores derived from the new measure had excellent test-retest reliability (0.85) and construct validity. The CAMPHOR utility score appears better able to distinguish between WHO functional classes (II and III) than the EQ-5D and SF-6D.

Conclusion

The tariff derived in this study can be used to classify an individual into a health state based on their responses to the CAMPHOR. The results of this study widen the evidence base for conducting economic evaluations of interventions designed to improve QoL for patients with PH.
Literature
1.
Rubin LJ: Primary pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1997, 336: 111–7. 10.1056/NEJM199701093360207CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gibbs JSR, Higgenbottam TW: Recommendations on the management of pulmonary hypertension in clinical practice. Heart 2001, 86(Suppl):i1-i13.
3.
Galie N, Manes A, Branzi A: Prostanoids for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Med 2003, 2(2):123–37.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Scottish Medicines Consortium: Review of Iloprost, November (219/05). 2005.
5.
6.
7.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Health Service, London; 2004:1–54.
8.
Brooks R, Rabin R, De Charro F: The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. London: Kluwer Academic publishers; 2004.
9.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21: 271–92. 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8CrossRefPubMed
10.
Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle Ml: Multiattribute and single attribute utility function – the health utility index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002, 40: 113–28. 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006CrossRefPubMed
11.
Brazier JE, Severill M, Harper R, Booth A: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology and Assessment 1999., 3(9):
12.
Guyatt GH, King DR, Feeny DH, Stubbing D, Goldstein RS: Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52(3):187–92. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00157-7CrossRefPubMed
13.
McTaggart-Cowan HM, Marra CA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Kopec JA, Fitzgerald JM, Anis AH, Lynd LD: The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status. Qual Life Res 2008, 17(3):453–62. 10.1007/s11136-008-9309-6CrossRefPubMed
14.
Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Naglie G: Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(3):509–22. 10.1007/s11136-006-9132-xCrossRefPubMed
15.
McKenna SP, Doughty N, Meads DM, Doward LC, Pepke-Zaba J: The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR): A measure of health-related quality of life and quality of life for patients with pulmonary hypertension. Qual Life Res 2006, 15: 103–15. 10.1007/s11136-005-3513-4CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rasch G: On general laws and the meaning of measurementin psychology. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Volume IV. Edited by: Neyman J. Berkeley CA: University of California Press; 1961:321–334.
17.
Brazier JE, 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 Making 2008, 28: 113–126. 10.1177/0272989X07301820CrossRefPubMed
18.
MVH Group: The measurement and valuation of health: Final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.
19.
Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Medical Care 1997, 35(11):1095–1108. 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002CrossRefPubMed
20.
Keogh AM, McNeil KD, Wlodarczyk J, Gabbay E, Williams TJ: Quality of life in pulmonary arterial hypertension: improvement and maintenance with bosentan. J Heart Lung Transplant 2007, 26(2):181–7. 10.1016/j.healun.2006.11.009CrossRefPubMed
21.
Dowie J: Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ 2002, 11: 1–8. 10.1002/hec.667CrossRefPubMed
22.
Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV: Validity and feasibility of the use of condition specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003, 12: 363–71. 10.1023/A:1023453405252CrossRefPubMed
23.
Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Sorensen S, Togias A: Integrating patients preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multiattribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 1998, 114: 998–1007. 10.1378/chest.114.4.998CrossRefPubMed
24.
Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S: A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(31):1–103. iiiCrossRefPubMed
25.
Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J, Stolk E: Issues in estimating a preference based index for condition specific measures. Presentation at the International Health Economics Association meeting, San Francisco, USA 2002.
26.
Insinga RP, Fryback DG: Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(6):611–9. 10.1023/A:1025170308141CrossRefPubMed
27.
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. 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses
Authors
Stephen P McKenna
Julie Ratcliffe
David M Meads
John E Brazier
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-65

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2008 Go to the issue

Research

Quality of life in children three and nine months after discharge from a paediatric intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study

Research

EQ-5D visual analog scale and utility index values in individuals with diabetes and at risk for diabetes: Findings from the Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes (SHIELD)

Research

Simple imputation methods were inadequate for missing not at random (MNAR) quality of life data

Research

Effect of dexamethasone on quality of life in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a prospective observational study

Research

Characterizing the burden of premature ejaculation from a patient and partner perspective: a multi-country qualitative analysis

Research

Identification of symptom domains in ulcerative colitis that occur frequently during flares and are responsive to changes in disease activity