Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2011

01-10-2011

A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey

Auteurs: Alfredo J. Selim, William Rogers, Shirley X. Qian, John Brazier, Lewis E. Kazis

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2011

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) is currently the major endpoint used in the Medicare managed care outcomes measure in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®), referred to as the Health Outcomes Survey (HOS). The purpose of this study is to adapt the Brazier SF-6D utility measure to the VR-12 to generate a single utility index.

Methods

We used the HOS cohorts 2 and 3 for SF-36 data and 9 for VR-12 data. We calculated SF-6D scores from the SF-36 using the algorithms developed by Brazier and colleagues. The values of the Brazier SF-6D were used to estimate utility scores from the VR-12 using a mapping approach based on a 2-stage mapping procedure, named as VR-6D.

Results

The VR-6D derived from the VR-12 has similar distributional properties as the SF-6D. The change in VR-6D showed significant variations across disease groups with different levels of morbidity and mortality.

Conclusions

This study produced a utility measure for the VR-12 that is comparable to the SF-6D and responsive to change. The VR-6D can be used in evaluations of health care plans and cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the health gains that health care interventions can achieve.
vorige artikel Family quality of life in dementia: a qualitative approach to family-identified care priorities
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Eichler, H. G., Kong, S. X., Gerth, W. C., Mavros, P., & Jönsson, B. (2004). Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health, 7, 518–528.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Gold, M. R., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Kazis, L. (Chair of committee report) (in alphabetical order) Bierman, A., Diehr, P., Hays, R., Holzman, J., Iqbal, S.U., Kaplan, R., Lawrence, W., Rogers, W., Scholle, S.H., Selim, A., Shapiro, G., Smith, K. A White Paper report commissioned by CMS with Recommendations for the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore Maryland, October 26, 2007.
4.
HEDIS®2003 Volume 6. February 2003. Specifications for the medicare health outcomes survey. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.
5.
Neumann, P. J., Rosen, A. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (2005). Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1516–1522.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Gold, M. R., Kamlet, M. S., & Russell, L. B. (1996). Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 276, 1253–1258.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., et al. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(1), 13–35.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Andresen, E. M., Rothenberg, B. M., & Kaplan, R. M. (1998). Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Medical Care, 36(9), 1349–1360.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
Feeny, D., Toorance, G., Furlong, W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2, 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12 Item Short Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., et al. (2006). Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: Conclusions and summary. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29, 182–188.PubMed
15.
16.
Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kazis, L. E., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., et al. (1999). Health status in VA patients: Results from the Veterans Health Study. American Journal of Medical Quality, 14, 28–38.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hanmer, J. (2009). Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS Scores from the SF-36 or SF-12. Value in Health, 12, 958–966.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Kazis, L. E., Selim, A., Rogers, W., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., & Miller, D. R. (2006). Dissemination of methods and results from the veterans health study: Final comments and implications for future monitoring strategies within and outside the veterans healthcare system. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29, 310–319.PubMed
21.
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., et al. (2004). Patient-reported measures of health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27, 70–83.PubMed
22.
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(3), 263–280.PubMed
23.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. K. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A users’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.
24.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1995). SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scores. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.
25.
Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., et al. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18, 43–52.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2009). Predicting SF-6D preference-based utilities using the SF-36 health summary scores: Approximating health related utilities when patient level data is not available. Value in Health, 12, 346–353.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27, 263–280.PubMed
28.
Perlin, J., Kazis, L. E., Skinner, K., et al. (2000). Health status and outcomes of veterans: Physical and mental component summary scores veterans SF-36. 1999 large health survey of veteran enrollees, executive report. Office of Quality and Performance (10Q) and Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, HSR&D Field Program, Washington D.C. and Bedford Massachusetts.
29.
Bullen, P. S., & Mitrinović, D. S., Vasić, P. M. “Means and their inequalities,” Reidel (1988) pp. 27ff.
30.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Harrison, M., Davies, L., Bansback, N. J., McCoy, M. J., Verstappe, S. M. S., Watson, K., Symmons, D. P. M. and the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium (2009). Qual Life Res 18:1195–1205.
32.
Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206–224.CrossRef
33.
Tsuchiya, A., & Dolan, P. (2005). The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: A systematic review of the literature. Medical Decision Making, 25, 460–467.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Smith, M. D., Drummond, M., & Brixner, D. (2009). Moving the QALY forward: Rationale for change. Value Health, 1, S1–S4.CrossRef
35.
Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2008). How consistent are health utility values? Quality of Life Research, 17, 1031–1042.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Seymour, J., McNamee, P., Scott, A., & Tinelli, M. (2010). Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Economics, 19, 683–696.PubMed
37.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 597–612.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1242–1252.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey
Auteurs
Alfredo J. Selim
William Rogers
Shirley X. Qian
John Brazier
Lewis E. Kazis
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2011
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9866-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2011

Quality of Life Research 8/2011 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The influence of psychosocial factors on quality of life among women with pain: a prospective study in Sweden

OriginalPaper

Compared to what? A joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life

OriginalPaper

Concordance in the measurement of quality of life and health indicators between two methods of computer-assisted interviews: self-administered and by telephone

OriginalPaper

Quality of life among parents of children with cancer or brain tumors: the impact of child characteristics and parental psychosocial factors

OriginalPaper

Examining the SF-36 in an older population: analysis of data and presentation of Australian adult reference scores from the Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing (DYNOPTA) project

OriginalPaper

Children and adolescents’ health-related quality of life in relation to eczema, asthma and hay fever: results from a population-based cross-sectional study