Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures
- 807 Downloads
The goal of this study was to appraise the extent of unique content on disease-specific preference-based measures (DSPMs) when contrasted with the EQ-5D using published studies and to inform whether EQ-5D could be inadequate as a utility measure in its content coverage for a given disease-specific application.
A structured search of published literature was performed using PubMed and EMBASE/Medline database from Jan 1, 1990 to Mar 31, 2011. Articles were eligible for inclusion if algorithms were developed to convert components from disease-specific measures into utility scores.
Of 1,029 articles identified, 50 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The most frequent conditions where DSPMs were developed included cancer (12 studies), coronary artery disease (4 studies), osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis (3 studies of each), obesity, and stroke (2 studies of each). Most studies involved mapping items or scores from disease-specific non-preference-based measures onto a preference-based measure of health such as the EQ-5D. A substantial number of DSPMs appeared to include unique content not covered by EQ-5D dimensions.
Several conditions were identified as potential areas where the richness of the EQ-5D descriptive system could be enhanced. It is yet unclear whether added dimension(s) would contribute unique explained variance to a utility score. Given the resources required to rigorously develop a utility measure, the need for such measures should be carefully vetted.
KeywordsDisease-specific measures EQ-5D Utility Preferences Mapping
Simon Pickard and Louise Longworth are members of the EuroQol Group. An earlier draft of this manuscript was presented as a discussion paper at the 27th EuroQol Plenary Meeting in Athens, Greece, in September, 2010.
- 1.Rasanen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynanen, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., & Parkin, D. (2002). Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: Converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices. Germany: University Library of Munich.Google Scholar
- 19.McKenna, S. P., Ratcliffe, J., Meads, D. M., & Brazier, J. E. (2008). Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Pickard, A. S., Shaw, J. W., Lin, H. W., Trask, P. C., Aaronson, N., Lee, T. A., et al. (2009). A patient-based utility measure of health for clinical trials of cancer therapy based on the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Value in Health, 12(6), 977–988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Gudex, C. (1997). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks, & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- 34.Payakachat, N., Summers, K. H., Pleil, A. M., Murawski, M. M., Thomas Iii, J., Jennings, K., et al. (2009). 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. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 801–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Jang, R. W., Isogai, P. K., Mittmann, N., Bradbury, P. A., Shepherd, F. A., Feld, R., et al. (2010). Derivation of utility values from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire values in lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 5(12), 1953–1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Wijeysundera, H. C., Tomlinson, G., Norris, C. M., Ghali, W. A., Ko, D. T., & Krahn, M. D. (2011). Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in coronary artery disease: A mapping algorithm using a Bayesian framework. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 481–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Skolasky, R. L., Carreon, L. Y., Anderson, P. A., Albert, T. J., & Riley, L. H., 3rd (2011). Predicting health utility scores from the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire in a multicenter nationwide study of anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 36(25), 2211–2216.Google Scholar
- 46.Buxton, M. J., Lacey, L. A., Feagan, B. G., Niecko, T., Miller, D. W., & Townsend, R. J. (2007). 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 in Health, 10(3), 214–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Serrano-Aguilar, P., Ramallo-Farina, Y., Trujillo-Martin Mdel, M., Munoz-Navarro, S. R., Perestelo-Perez, L., & de las Cuevas-Castresana, C. (2009). The relationship among mental health status (GHQ-12), health related quality of life (EQ-5D) and health-state utilities in a general population. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 18(3), 229–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 53.Carreon, L. Y., Glassman, S. D., McDonough, C. M., Rampersaud, R., Berven, S., & Shainline, M. (2009). Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34(19), 2085–2089.Google Scholar
- 58.Lenert, L. A., Sturley, A. P., Rapaport, M. H., Chavez, S., Mohr, P. E., & Rupnow, M. (2004). Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophrenia Research, 71(1), 155–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar