Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

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

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.

vorige artikel A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values

volgende artikel Association of generic health-related quality of life (EQ-5D dimensions) and inactivity with lung function in lung-healthy German adults: results from the KORA studies F4L and Age

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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

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

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

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

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

Lipscomb, J., et al. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18-S26.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

Marra, C. A., et al. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 616–624.CrossRefPubMed

Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: Some challenges. Value in Health, 12, S10–S15.CrossRef

10.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

15.

EuroQol. (2015). About EQ-5D. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d.html.

16.

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.

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.

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.

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

20.

Craig, B. M., et al. (2014). US Valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health, 17(8), 846–853.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

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.

StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013, StataCorp LP: College Station, TX.

23.

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.

Craig, B. M., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2011). Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states. Journal of Health Economics, 30(5), 1057–1063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

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.

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.

NICE, Positition Statement on the use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017, National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence.

28.

Viney, R., et al. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.CrossRefPubMed

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

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2018

Association of generic health-related quality of life (EQ-5D dimensions) and inactivity with lung function in lung-healthy German adults: results from the KORA studies F4L and Age

Psychometric evaluation of the PainCAS Interference with Daily Activities, Psychological/Emotional Distress, and Pain scales

Factors affecting the quality of life before and after surgery in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Association between social support and health-related quality of life among Chinese rural elders in nursing homes: the mediating role of resilience

Casual effects of informal care and health on falls and other accidents among the elderly population in China

Bias in retrospective assessment of perceived dental treatment effects when using the Oral Health Impact Profile