Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2018

20-12-2017

Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D

Auteurs: John D. Hartman, Benjamin M. Craig

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Summarizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale is an essential component to any economic evaluation comparing alternative medical treatments. While multiple studies have compared PRO items and instruments based on their psychometric properties, no study has compared the preference-based summary of the EQ-5D-3L and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) instruments. As part of this comparison, a major aim of this manuscript is to transform PROMIS-29 utility values to an EQ-5D-3L scale.

Methods

A nationally representative survey of 2623 US adults completed the 29-item PROMIS health profile instrument (PROMIS-29) and the 3-level version of the EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D-3L). Their responses were summarized on a health utility scale using published estimates. Using regression analysis, PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-3L utility weights were compared with each other as well as with self-reported general health.

Results

PROMIS-29 utility weights were much lower than the EQ-5D-3L weights. However, a correlation coefficient of 0.769 between the utility values of the two instruments suggests that the main discordance is simply a difference in scale between the measures. It is also possible to map PROMIS-29 utility weights onto an EQ-5D-3L scale. EQ-5D-3L losses equal .1784 × (PROMIS-29 Losses).7286.

Conclusions

The published estimates of the PROMIS-29 produce lower utility values than many other health instruments. Mapping the PROMIS-29 estimates to an EQ-5D-3L scale alleviates this issue and allows for a more straightforward comparison between the PROMIS-29 and other common health instruments.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271. CrossRefPubMed Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271. CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166. CrossRefPubMed Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166. CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Fryback, D. G., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the national health measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fryback, D. G., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the national health measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. CrossRefPubMed Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Hanmer, J., et al. (2006). Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 391–400. CrossRefPubMed Hanmer, J., et al. (2006). Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 391–400. CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Lipscomb, J., et al. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18-S26. CrossRef Lipscomb, J., et al. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18-S26. CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., & Lenderking, W. R. (2012). Methods and issues associated with the use of quality-adjusted life-years. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(1), 105–114. CrossRef Revicki, D. A., & Lenderking, W. R. (2012). Methods and issues associated with the use of quality-adjusted life-years. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(1), 105–114. CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Marra, C. A., et al. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 616–624. CrossRefPubMed Marra, C. A., et al. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 616–624. CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: Some challenges. Value in Health, 12, S10–S15. CrossRef Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: Some challenges. Value in Health, 12, S10–S15. CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086. CrossRefPubMed Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086. CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Franks, P., et al. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 247–254. CrossRefPubMed Franks, P., et al. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 247–254. CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 401–409. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 401–409. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160–169. CrossRefPubMed Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160–169. CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 783–791. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 783–791. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. CrossRefPubMed Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Cella, D., et al. (2010). The Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cella, D., et al. (2010). The Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., et al. (2016). Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS (R) Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(10), 1015–1022. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hays, R. D., et al. (2016). Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS (R) Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(10), 1015–1022. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states—development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220. CrossRefPubMed Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states—development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220. CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014). Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific Model Development, 7(3), 1247–1250. CrossRef Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014). Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific Model Development, 7(3), 1247–1250. CrossRef
22.
go back to reference StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013, StataCorp LP: College Station, TX. StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013, StataCorp LP: College Station, TX.
23.
go back to reference Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99. CrossRefPubMed Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99. CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
go back to reference Fryback, D. G., et al. (2010). Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15. CrossRefPubMed Fryback, D. G., et al. (2010). Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15. CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Wisloff, T., et al. 2014. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wisloff, T., et al. 2014. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference NICE, Positition Statement on the use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017, National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence. NICE, Positition Statement on the use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017, National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence.
28.
go back to reference Viney, R., et al. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742. CrossRefPubMed Viney, R., et al. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D
Auteurs
John D. Hartman
Benjamin M. Craig
Publicatiedatum
20-12-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1769-0