Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities

The construction of mapping models is an increasingly popular mechanism for obtaining health state utility data to inform economic evaluations in health care. There is great variation in the sophistication of the methods utilized but to date very little discussion of the appropriate theoretical framework to guide the design and evaluation of these models. In this paper, we argue that recognizing mapping models as a form of indirect health state valuation allows the use of the framework described by Dolan for the measurement of social preferences over health. Using this framework, we identify substantial concerns with the method for valuing health states that is implicit in indirect utility models (IUMs), the conflation of two sets of respondents’ values in such models, and the lack of a structured and statistically reasonable approach to choosing which states to value and how many observations per state to require in the estimation dataset. We also identify additional statistical challenges associated with clustering and censoring in the datasets for IUMs, additional to those attributable to the descriptive systems, and a potentially significant problem with the systematic understatement of uncertainty in predictions from IUMs. Whilst recognizing that IUMs appear to meet the needs of reimbursement organizations that use quality-adjusted life years in their appraisal processes, we argue that current proposed quality standards are inadequate and that IUMs are neither robust nor appropriate mechanisms for estimating utilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

[1]  Philip Quirke,et al.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[2]  A. Brennan,et al.  Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? , 2005, Applied health economics and health policy.

[3]  K. Perampaladas,et al.  Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  Casper J. P. Zhang,et al.  INTERIM SCORING FOR THE EQ-5 D-5 L : MAPPING THE EQ-5 D-5 L TO EQ-5 D-3 L VALUE SETS Methodology , 2011 .

[5]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making in Healthcare: Welton/Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making in Healthcare , 2012 .

[6]  Urs E. Studer,et al.  Немедленная и отсроченная андрогенная блокада у больных раком предстательной железы, которым не показано местное радикальное лечение: исследование 30891 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) , 2006 .

[7]  K. Perampaladas,et al.  Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: A systematic review and methodological reporting checklist , 2013 .

[8]  Mark Oppe,et al.  From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[9]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. , 2005, Health economics.

[10]  T. Kohlmann,et al.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[11]  Albert W Wu,et al.  Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. , 2007, Health services research.

[12]  P. Dolan Modelling valuations for health states , 1997 .

[13]  K Claxton,et al.  Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[14]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Title : Modelling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method , 2006 .

[15]  Allan Wailoo,et al.  Tails from the Peak District: adjusted censored mixture models of EQ-5D health state utility values , 2010 .

[16]  J Brazier,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 8: An Introduction to the Measurement and Valuation of Health for NICE Submissions [Internet] , 2011 .

[17]  Julie Ratcliffe,et al.  Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[19]  John Brazier,et al.  Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[20]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making in Healthcare (Statistics in Practice) , 2012 .

[21]  Michael Donnelly,et al.  The measurement of health-related quality of life , 2001 .

[22]  Jenny Hewison,et al.  The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic Renal Cancer , 2012, BMC Cancer.

[23]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18 , 2011 .

[24]  Donna Rowen,et al.  Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  M. Mcgrath Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1998 .

[26]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. , 2002, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.