Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  2. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Office of Health Economics. J.E.B. was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. We would like to thank Colin Lynch and Anna Wilkinson for conducting the literature searches. We are also grateful for comments from colleagues at the University of Sheffield, including Tony O’Hagan and Jennifer Roberts, and to those members of the UK Health Economists’ Study Group, in particular Jacquie Brown, and to members of the EuroQol Group who replied to our request for mapping studies. We are responsible for any remaining errors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John E. Brazier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brazier, J.E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A. et al. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 11, 215–225 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation