Mapping between 6 Multiattribute Utility Instruments

Background: Cost-utility analyses commonly employ a multiattribute utility (MAU) instrument to estimate the health state utilities, which are needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Different MAU instruments predict significantly different utilities, which makes comparison of results from different evaluation studies problematical. Aim: This article presents mapping functions (“crosswalks”) from 6 MAU instruments (EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, Health Utilities Index 3 [HUI 3], 15D, Quality of Well-Being [QWB], and Assessment of Quality of Life 8D [AQoL-8D]) to each of the other 5 instruments in the study: a total of 30 mapping functions. Methods: Data were obtained from a multi-instrument comparison survey of the public and patients in 7 disease areas conducted in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, and United States). The 8022 respondents were administered each of the 6 study instruments. Mapping equations between each instrument pair were estimated using 4 econometric techniques: ordinary least squares, generalized linear model, censored least absolute deviations, and, for the first time, a robust MM-estimator. Results: Goodness-of-fit indicators for each of the results are within the range of published studies. Transformations reduced discrepancies between predicted utilities. Incremental utilities, which determine the value of quality-related health benefits, are almost perfectly aligned at the sample means. Conclusion: Transformations presented here align the measurement scales of MAU instruments. Their use will increase confidence in the comparability of evaluation studies, which have employed different MAU instruments.

[1]  J. Richardson,et al.  Comparing and Explaining Differences in the Magnitude, Content, and Sensitivity of Utilities Predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D Multiattribute Utility Instruments , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  J. Richardson,et al.  Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D , 2014, Quality of Life Research.

[3]  Shu-Kay Ng,et al.  Mapping of the PDQ-39 to EQ-5D scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[5]  J. Brazier,et al.  Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  D. Globe,et al.  Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire among patients with neurogenic and idiopathic overactive bladder. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study. , 2012, Health economics.

[8]  S. Sullivan,et al.  Mapping from disease-specific measures to health-state utility values in individuals with migraine. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  Jeffrey E. Lee,et al.  Mapping FACT-melanoma quality-of-life scores to EQ-5D health utility weights. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures , 2010, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[11]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 otitis media questionnaire , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  M. Palta,et al.  Comparison of 5 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes Using Item Response Theory Analysis , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  Kent H. Summers,et al.  Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  A. Scott,et al.  Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[15]  M. Drummond,et al.  Toward a consensus on the QALY. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[16]  C. Croux,et al.  Robust Regression in Stata , 2008 .

[17]  Y. Cheung,et al.  Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index , 2008, Quality of Life Research.

[18]  Leonie Segal,et al.  Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[19]  C. Willmott,et al.  Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance , 2005 .

[20]  A. Cameron,et al.  Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications , 2005 .

[21]  V. Yohai.  HIGH BREAKDOWN-POINT AND HIGH EFFICIENCY ROBUST ESTIMATES FOR REGRESSION , 1987 .

[22]  J. Powell,et al.  Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model , 1984 .

[23]  J. Richardson,et al.  Multiattribute Utility Instruments and Their Use , 2014 .

[24]  J. Richardson.  Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments , 2012 .

[25]  Mark Sculpher,et al.  REPORT BY THE DECISION SUPPORT UNIT , 2010 .

[26]  John Fox,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models , 2008 .

[27]  K. McGraw,et al.  Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. , 1996 .