Skip to main content
Log in

Mapping PROMIS Global Health Items to EuroQol (EQ-5D) Utility Scores Using Linear and Equipercentile Equating

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Mapping Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–Global Health (PROMIS-GH) to EuroQol 5-dimension, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) provides a utility score for use in quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness analyses. In 2009, Revicki et al. mapped the PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utilities using linear regression (REVReg). More recently, regression was shown to be ill-suited for mapping to preference-based measures due to regression to the mean. Linear and equipercentile equating are alternative mapping methods that avoid the issue of regression to the mean. Another limitation of the prior models is that ordinal predictors were treated as continuous.

Methods

Using data collected from the PROMIS Wave 1 sample, we refit REVReg, treating the PROMIS-GH items as categorical variables (CATReg). We applied linear and equipercentile equating to the REVReg model (REVLE, REVequip) and the CATReg model (CATLE, CATequip). We validated and compared the predictive accuracy of these models in a large sample of neurological patients at a single tertiary-care hospital.

Results

In the neurological disease patient sample, CATLE produced the strongest correlations between estimated and observed EQ-5D-3L scores and had the lowest mean squared error. The CATequip model had the lowest mean absolute error and had estimated scores that best matched the overall distribution of observed scores.

Conclusions

Using linear and equipercentile equating, we created new models mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utility scores. EQ-5D-3L utility scores can be more accurately estimated using our models for use in cost-effectiveness studies or studies examining overall health-related quality of life.

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. Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, Chen WH, Hays RD, Cella D. 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. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:783–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ, Ganz PA. Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer. J Natl Canc Inst. 2003;95:263–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blazeby JM, Avery K, Sprangers M, Pikhart H, Fayers P, Donovan J. Health-related quality of life measurement in randomized clinical trials in surgical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3178–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hand C. Measuring health-related quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings: Critical review of concepts and 3 tools. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62:e375–83.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ware JE, Cherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European persepective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sauerland S, Weiner S, Dolezalova K, Angrisani L, Noguera CM, García-Caballero M, et al. Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in bariatric surgery patients. Value Health. 2009;12:364–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hays RD, Revicki DA, Feeny D, Fayers P, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Using linear equating to map PROMIS® global health items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 profile measure to the health utilities index mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:1015–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Le QA, Doctor JN. Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: an empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Med Care. 2011;49:451–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and Crohn’s disease activity index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health. 2007;10:214–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:215–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Black N, Burke L, Forrest CB, Ravens Sieberer UH, Ahmed S, Valderas JM, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:1103–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kelley TA. International consortium for health outcomes measurement (ICHOM). Trials. 2015;16(Suppl 3):O4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fayers PM, Hays RD. Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value Health. 2014;17:261–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:993–1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:873–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cella D. PROMIS 1 Wave 1. Harvard Dataverse; 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21134.

  21. Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, Shen J, Morales LS, Riley W, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1169–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Katzan IL, Speck M, Dopler C, Urchek J, Bielawski K, Dunphy C, et al. The knowledge program: an innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2011;683–92.

  23. Albano AD. Equate: an R package for observed-score linking and equating. J Stat Softw. 2016;74(8):1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. R Core Team. R: a language environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; 2016. http://www.r-project.org/.

  25. Sullivan PW. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:401–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gray AM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Borchani H, Bielza C, Martinez-Martin P, Larranaga P. Markov blanket-based approach for learning multi-dimensional Bayesian network classifiers: An application to predict the European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) from the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). J Biomed Inform. 2012;45:1175–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Neurological Institute Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation for supporting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceived and designed the study: NRT, ILK. Analyzed the data: NRT. Wrote first draft: NRT. Critically revised the manuscript: All authors. Reviewed and approved the final manuscript: All authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas R. Thompson.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No external funding was received.

Conflict of interest

Nicolas Thompson has received salary support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals for research outside the submitted work. Brittany Lapin and Irene Katzan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

The study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board. Because the study consisted of analyses of pre-existing data, the requirement for patient informed consent was waived.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

40273_2017_541_MOESM1_ESM.docx

e-Fig 1 Empirical cumulative distribution functions for each of the REVReg, REVLE, REVequip, CATReg, CATLE, and CATequip models in the PROMIS Wave 1 (N = 13,955) and Cleveland Clinic neurological disease (N = 6906) samples. CCND Cleveland Clinic Neurological Disease sample, EQ-5D-3L EuroQol 5-Dimensions, three-level version, REV Reg Revicki’s original linear regression model 3, REV LE Revicki’s original linear regression model 3 with linear equating applied to the predicted values, REV equip Revicki’s original linear regression model 3 with equipercentile equating applied to the predicted values, CAT Reg linear regression model where PROMIS Global Health items are treated as categorical predictors, CAT LE model that applies linear equating to the predicted values of a linear regression model where PROMIS Global Health items are treated as categorical predictors, CAT equip model that applies equipercentile equating to the predicted values of a linear regression model where PROMIS Global Health items are treated as categorical predictors, PW1 PROMIS Wave 1 Sample (DOCX 70 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (RTF 12 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 140 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (TXT 5 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 86 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thompson, N.R., Lapin, B.R. & Katzan, I.L. Mapping PROMIS Global Health Items to EuroQol (EQ-5D) Utility Scores Using Linear and Equipercentile Equating. PharmacoEconomics 35, 1167–1176 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0541-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0541-1

Navigation