Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 3177–3185 | Cite as

Mapping the Shah-modified Barthel Index to the Health Utility Index Mark III by the Mean Rank Method

  • Yin Bun CheungEmail author
  • Hui Xing Tan
  • Nan Luo
  • Hwee Lin Wee
  • Gerald C. H. Koh
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To map the Shah-modified Barthel Index (SBI) to the Health Utility Index Mark III (HUI-3) in stroke patients, and to compare the performance of a recently developed method called the Mean Rank Method (MRM) against a popular method, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method.

Methods

A cohort of 473 patients who had their first clinical stroke diagnosis and hospital admission and were assessed using the SBI and HUI-3 at 3 months and/or 12 months post-admission. Observations were split to form a training dataset (N = 473) and a validation dataset (N = 245).

Results

In the training dataset, the MRM using SBI total score as the predictor produced a mapped utility distribution that closely resembled the observed utility distribution. It had almost no shrinkage of the standard deviation (P = 0.542), whereas the OLS using SBI total score and SBI item scores under-estimated the standard deviation by 28% and 26%, respectively (each P < 0.001). The MRM mapping gave better fit in terms of smaller mean absolute error and larger intra-class correlation than the two versions of OLS mapping, whereas the OLS gave smaller mean-squared errors than the MRM. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the use of OLS-mapped utilities tended to under-estimate both the mean utility of people who had no comorbidity and the utility-comorbidity association as compared to the observed utility-comorbidity pattern although the differences did not reach statistical significance (each P > 0.05). The MRM-mapped utility showed utility-comorbidity pattern more similar to the observed. Similar findings were obtained from the validation dataset.

Conclusions

The MRM performed well. Mapping functions are available to map the SBI to the HUI-3 Utility Index.

Keywords

Activities of daily living Barthel Index Health utility Health Utility Index Mark III Mapping Stroke 

Notes

Author contributions

Conceptualization: YBC, NL, and HLW and GCHK. Data analysis: YBC and HXT. Writing, original draft: YBC and HXT. Writing, critical review and final version: HXT, YBC, NL, and HLW, GCHK.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no potential 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 (National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board S17-257E) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2019_2254_MOESM1_ESM.xls (38 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research,20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,51(11), 1115–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., et al. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,1, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., et al. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value in Health,17(2), 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institue for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value in Health,16(1), 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agency for Care Effectiveness. (2018). Drug Evaluation Methods and Process Guide. Singapore: Agency for Care Effectiveness, Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singapore Ministry of Health. (2016). ElderShield Fast Facts. Singapore: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Exel, N. J., Scholte Op Reimer, W. J., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2004). Assessment of post-stroke quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies: The usefulness of the Barthel Index and the EuroQoL-5D. Quality of Life Research,13(2), 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaambwa, B., Billingham, L., & Bryan, S. (2013). Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. European Journal of Health Economics,14(2), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah, S., Vanclay, F., & Cooper, B. (1989). Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,42, 703–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah, S., Cooper, B., & Maas, F. (1992). The Barthel Index and ADL evaluation in stroke rehabilitation in Australia, Japan, the U K and the USA. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,39, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brazier, J., 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. European Journal of Health Economics,11, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wee, H. L., Yeo, K. K., Chong, K. J., Khoo, E. Y. H., & Cheung, Y. B. (2018). Mean rank, equipercentile and regression mapping of World Health Organization Qualty of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) to EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) utilties. Medical Decision Making,38(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheung, Y. B., Thumboo, J., Gao, F., et al. (2009). Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General to the EQ-5D Utility Index. Value in Health,12(2), 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheung, Y. B., Tan, H. X., Wang, V. W., et al. (2019). Mapping the Alzheimer’s disease cooperative study—Activities of daily living inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III. Quality of Life Research,28(1), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a Multi-ethnic Asian Population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,12, 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheung, Y. B., Tan, L. C. S., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Luo, N. (2008). Mapping the 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D Utility Index. Quality of Life Research,17, 1173–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making,26(4), 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Chen, G., Russo, R., Stevens, K., Petersen, K. D., & Ratcliffe, J. (2017). Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQL™ 4.0 SF-15. Pharmacoeconomics,35(4), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen, G., Tan, J. T., Ng, K., Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2014). Mapping of incontinence quality of life (I-QOL) scores to assessment of quality of life 8D (AQoL-8D) utilities in patients with idiopathic overactive bladder. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,12, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modellling and survey. Health Technology Assessment,18(9), 1–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joyce, V. R., Sun, H., Barnett, P. G., Bansback, N., Griffin, S. C., Bayoumi, A. M., et al. (2017). Mapping MOS-HIV to HUI3 and EQ-5D-3L in patients with HIV. MDM Policy and Practice,2(2), 2381468317716440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, C. F., Ng, R., Luo, N., & Cheung, Y. B. (2018). Development of conversion functions mapping the FACT-B total score to the EQ-5D-5L utility value by three linking methods and comparison with the ordinary least square method. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy,16(5), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care,40(2), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., et al. (2003). A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. Journal of Rheumatology,30, 2268–2274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Seow, E., Peh, C. X., Tan, J. H., Liu, J., et al. (2019). A comparison of the reliability and validity of SF-6D, EQ-5D and HUI3 utility measures in patients with schizophrenia and patients with depression in Singapore. Psychiatry Research,274, 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Royston, P., & Altman, D. G. (1994). Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parametric modeling (with discussion). Applied Statistics,43, 429–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singapore Stroke Registry, Ministry of Health. (2015). Trends in Stroke in Singapore 2005-2015. Singapore Storke Registry Report No. 4. Singapore: National Registry of Disease Office, Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Versteegh, M. M., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., & Stolk, E. A. (2010). Mapping onto EQ-5D for patients in poor health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,8, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kong, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. (2006). Health-related quality of life among chronic stroke survivors attending a rehabilitation clinic. Singapore Medical Journal,47(3), 213–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Health Services & Systems Research and Centre for Quantitative MedicineDuke-NUS Medical SchoolSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Child Health Research, Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  3. 3.Saw Swee Hock School of Public HealthNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Department of PharmacyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations