Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

03-02-2023

Mapping the EQ-5D-5L from the Spanish national health survey functional disability scale through Bayesian networks

Auteurs: Alba Ayala, Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña, Amaia Bilbao-Gonzalez, Maria João Forjaz

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2023

Abstract

Purpose

Preference-based measures are valuable tools for evaluating therapeutic interventions and for cost-effectiveness studies. Mapping procedures are useful when it is not possible to collect these kind of measures. The objective of this study was to evaluate which mapping method is the most appropriate to estimate the EQ-5D-5L index from the Spanish National Health Survey functional disability scale.

Methods

The sample, formed by 5708 older adults (aged 65 years or older), was drawn from the Spanish National Health Survey (“Encuesta Nacional de Salud en España,” ENSE in Spanish 2011–2012). The predictions of EQ-5D-5L index were performed with response mapping using Bayesian network (BN), ordered logit (Ologit), and multinomial logistic (ML). The following direct methods were used: ordinary least squares (OLS) and Tobit regression. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), and root-mean squared error (RMSE) were calculated to compare all models. The predictions of response models were obtained through the expected value method.

Results

BN model showed the highest ICC (0.756, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.733–0.777) and lowest MAE (0.110, 95% CI 0.104–0.115). OLS was the model with worse accuracy results with lowest ICC (0.621, 95% CI 0.553–0.681) and highest MAE (0.159, 95%CI: 0.145–0.173).

Conclusion

Indirect mapping methods (BN, Ologit, and ML) had a better accuracy than the direct methods. The response mapping approach provides a robust method to estimate EQ-5D-5L scores from the functional disability scale.

vorige artikel Comparing the effects of reduced social contact on psychosocial wellbeing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal survey from two Norwegian counties

volgende artikel Content validation of the SF-36v2® Health Survey Acute for use in hypoparathyroidism

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. S. (2013). Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights, 6, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.4137/HSI.S11093CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Rivero-Santana, A., García-Pérez, L., García-Bello, M. A., Wägner, A. M., Gonzalez-Pacheco, H., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, L., Kaiser-Girardot, S., Monzón-Monzón, G., Guerra-Marrero, C., Daranas-Aguilar, C., Roldán-Ruano, M., Carmona, M., & Serrano-Aguilar, P. G. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures for knowledge transfer and behaviour modification interventions in type 2 diabetes-the INDICA study: A multiarm cluster randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal Open, 11(12), e050804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050804CrossRef

Borg, S., Eeg-Olofsson, K., Palaszewski, B., SvedboEngström, M., Gerdtham, U.-G., & Gudbjörnsdottir, S. (2019). Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for diabetes: Development of scale models, differences between patient groups and relationships with cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors, in a combined registry and survey study in Sweden. British Medical Journal Open, 9(1), e025033. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025033CrossRef

Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., Jensen, S. E., Butt, Z., Nowinski, C. J., Rothrock, N., & Lohr, K. N. (2015). Types of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Performance Measurement. RTI Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424381/

Anguita, J. C., Labrador, J. R. R., & Candel, J. P. (2001). Medidas de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Conceptos básicos, construcción y adaptación cultural. [Health-related quality of life measures. Basic concepts, construction and cultural adaptation]. Medicina Clínica, 116(20), 789–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(01)71987-2CrossRef

Tolley, K. (2009). What are health utilities? Hayward Medical Communications.

Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Castilla, I., Valcárcel-Nazco, C., García-Pérez, L., Linertová, R., Polentinos-Castro, E., & Serrano-Aguilar, P. (2016). On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: Why, what, how? Value in Health, 19(5), 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020CrossRefPubMed

Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynänen, O.-P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462306051051CrossRefPubMed

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE. Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword.

10.

Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care, 11(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-zCrossRefPubMed

11.

Dakin, H. (2013). Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-151CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Dakin, H., Abel, L., Burns, R., & Yang, Y. (2018). Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database and application of the MAPS statement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0857-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Harnan, S., Rawdin, A., Wong, R., Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2019). An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6CrossRefPubMed

14.

Meunier, A., Soare, A., Chevrou-Severac, H., Myren, K.-J., Murata, T., & Longworth, L. (2022). Indirect and direct mapping of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L utility scores. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 20(1), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00682-0CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kharroubi, S. A., Edlin, R., Meads, D., Browne, C., Brown, J., & McCabe, C. (2015). Use of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate EQ-5D utility scores from EORTC QLQ data in myeloma for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15575285CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pearl, J. (1985). Bayesian netwcrks: A model cf self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA (pp. 15–17).

17.

Le, Q. A., & Doctor, J. N. (2011). 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. Medical Care, 49(5), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318207e9a8CrossRefPubMed

18.

Le, Q. A. (2014). Probabilistic mapping of the health status measure SF-12 onto the health utility measure EQ-5D using the US-population-based scoring models. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0517-3CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ayala, A., Forjaz, M. J., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Martín-Fernández, J., García-Pérez, L., & Bilbao, A. (2021). Response mapping methods to estimate the EQ-5D-5L From the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Value in Health, 24(6), 874–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.003CrossRefPubMed

20.

Borchani, H., Bielza, C., Martı Nez-Martı, N., & P., & Larrañaga, P. (2012). 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). Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 45(6), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2012.07.010CrossRefPubMed

21.

Forjaz, M. J., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Ayala, A., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, V., de Pedro-Cuesta, J., Garcia-Gutierrez, S., & Prados-Torres, A. (2015). Chronic conditions, disability, and quality of life in older adults with multimorbidity in Spain. European Journal of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2015.02.016CrossRefPubMed

22.

Palacios-Ceña, D., Jiménez-García, R., Hernández-Barrera, V., Alonso-Blanco, C., Carrasco-Garrido, P., & Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. (2012). Has the prevalence of disability increased over the past decade (2000–2007) in elderly people? A Spanish populationbased survey. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.05.007CrossRefPubMed

23.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). (2012). Metodología. Encuesta Nacional de Salud (ENSE 2011–2012) (pp. 38–39). SciELO Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.ine.es/metodologia/t15/t153041912.pdf

24.

Jacobsen, A., de Miranda Azevedo, R., Juty, N., Batista, D., Coles, S., Cornet, R., Courtot, M., Crosas, M., Dumontier, M., Evelo, C. T., Goble, C., Guizzardi, G., Kryger Hansen, K., Hasnain, A., Hettne, K., Heringa, J., Hooft, R. W. W., Imming, M., Jeffery, K. G., … Schultes, E. (2020). FAIR principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations. Data Intelligence, 2(1–2), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_r_00024CrossRef

25.

Oemar, M., Janssen, B., Rabin, R., Oppe, M., & Herdman, M. (2013). EQ-5D-5L user guide, version 2.0. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument Rotterdam. In EQ-5D-5L user guide, version 2.0. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument Rotterdam (Vol. 28). EuroQol Group.

26.

Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Craig, B. M., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Luo, N., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2018). Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value in Health, 21(5), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cabrero-García, J., & Juliá-Sanchis, R. (2014). The Global Activity Limitation Index mainly measured functional disability, whereas self-rated health measured physical morbidity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 468–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.005CrossRefPubMed

28.

Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2015). The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: Explanation and elaboration. PharmacoEconomics, 33(10), 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9CrossRefPubMed

29.

Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2016). Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1082-8CrossRefPubMed

30.

Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement. PharmacoEconomics, 33(10), 985–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0319-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Dawid, A. P., Cowell, R. G., Lauritzen, S. L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1999). Probabilistic networks and expert systems. Springer.

32.

Borgelt, C., Steinbrecher, M., & Kruse, R. R. (2009). Graphical models: Representations for learning, reasoning and data mining. Wiley.CrossRef

33.

Friedman, N., & Goldszmidt, M. (1996). Building classifiers using Bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1277–1284).

34.

Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Rivero-Arias, O., & Dakin, H. (2013). Response mapping to translate health outcomes into the generic health-related quality-of-life instrument EQ-5D: Introducing the mrs2eq and oks2eq commands. The Stata Journal, 13(3), 474–491.CrossRef

35.

Scutari, M. (2015). Package “bnlearn”. Bayesian network structure learning, parameter learning and inference. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bnlearn/bnlearn.pdf.

36.

Scutari, M. (2010). Learning Bayesian networks with the bnlearn R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 35(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v035.i03CrossRef

37.

Fauntroy, V., Nolton, E. C., & Ambegaonkar, J. P. (2020). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures used in dance: A systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 15(3), 333–342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Hernández Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2014). A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Medical Decision Making, 34(7), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13500720CrossRefPubMed

39.

Wailoo, A., Hernández, M., Philips, C., Brophy, S., & Siebert, S. (2015). Modeling health state utility values in ankylosing spondylitis: Comparisons of direct and indirect methods. Value in Health, 18(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.016CrossRefPubMed

40.

Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Taira, N., Kawahara, T., Konomura, K., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., & Shimozuma, K. (2020). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01611-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Chen, G., & Parsonage, W. (2020). Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01368-2CrossRef

42.

Kaambwa, B., Billingham, L., & Bryan, S. (2013). Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care, 14(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0364-5CrossRefPubMed

43.

Dakin, H., Gray, A., & Murray, D. (2013). Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0189-4CrossRefPubMed

44.

Rogers, J. C., Holm, M. B., Beach, S., Schulz, R., Cipriani, J., Fox, A., & Starz, T. W. (2003). Concordance of four methods of disability assessment using performance in the home as the criterion method. Arthritis Care & Research: Official Journal of the American College of Rheumatology, 49(5), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.11379CrossRef

Titel: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L from the Spanish national health survey functional disability scale through Bayesian networks
Auteurs: Alba Ayala
Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña
Amaia Bilbao-Gonzalez
Maria João Forjaz
Publicatiedatum: 03-02-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03351-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2023

Health-related quality of life in seven European countries throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the European COvid Survey (ECOS)

Quality of the adaptation procedures and psychometric properties of the scale of oral health outcomes for 5-year-old children (SOHO-5): a systematic review

Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus©) instrument in patients with COVID-19

The associations between HIV stigma and mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, and quality of life among Black sexual minority men with HIV

Development and psychometric validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of recurrent urinary tract infection impact: the Recurrent UTI Impact Questionnaire

Comparative evaluation of the health utilities index mark 3 and the short form 6D: evidence from an individual participant data meta-analysis of very preterm and very low birthweight adults