, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 473–482 | Cite as

Linking Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indicators to Large National Data Sets

Original Research Article


Objective: This study investigated the feasibility and usefulness of linking algorithms for well known quality-of-life (QOL) indicators to large nationally representative databases.

Design and Setting: The National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES) was utilised. We developed an algorithm to match the EuroQOL health indicator and drew on a previous match of the Health Utilities Index (HUI) in a companion paper. This process allowed the sensitivity and detail of health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) indicators to be combined with the benefits of large, nationally representative data sets.

Patients and participants: A total of 19 525 individuals aged 18 years and older (constituting a nationally representative sample of the non-institutionalised civilian population of the US contained within the 1987 NMES database) were investigated.

Interventions: Sensitivity analyses using several related specifications of each indicator were performed. We analysed the correlations of these alternatives for both the HUI and EuroQOL measures. Correlations between the HUI and EuroQOL measures were also examined. We investigated the construct validity by examining the performance of the HUI and EuroQOLs in empirical situations in which we had knowledge about the relationships (e.g. health decreases with age).

Main outcome measures and results: The benefits of HR-QOL measures can be achieved relatively cheaply and efficiently via linking rather than developing a large scale QOL survey. Although the NMES data allowed a good match with the EuroQOL and the HUI, the matches were not perfect. By examining the within-domain correlations and the between-domain correlations, we found that the alternate specifications within-domain were very similar and that the 2 HRQOL indicators were comparable in many (but not all) aspects.

Conclusions: The results of this study suggested good construct validity. Thus, linked HR-QOL measures of the types derived in this study may be useful in characterising the health of large populations, and in investigating the causes and consequences of health.


Adis International Limited Ordinary Little Square Health Utility Index Linkage Algorithm National Medical Expenditure Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berthelot J-M, Roberge R, Wolfson M. The calculation of health-adjusted life expectancy for a Canadian province using a multi-attribute utility function: a first attempt. In: Robine JM, Mathers CD, Bone MR, et al., editors. Calculation of health expectancies: harmonization, consensus achieved and future perspectives. Montrouge, France: Colloque INSERM/John Libbey Eurotext Ltd., 1993; 226: 161–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schipper H, Clinch JJ, Olweny CL. Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lipincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 11–23Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolfson MC. Health-adjusted life expectancy. Health Rep 1996; 6 (1): 41–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erickson P. Modelling health-related quality of life: the bridge between psychometric and utility-based measures. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 20: 17–22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rizzo JA, Pashko S, Friedkin R, et al. Linking the health utilities index to National Medical Expenditure Survey Data. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5 Pt 1): 531–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gold MG, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996; 34 (2): 163–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Stoskopf B, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the health status of extremely low birthweight children at eight years of age: comparison with a reference group of children at age eight years. J Pediatr 1994a; 125 (3): 411–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saigal S, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. Comparison of the health-related quality of life of extremely low birth weight children and a reference group of children at eight years. J Pediatr 1994b; 125 (3): 418–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curtis L. Socioeconomic status and health [thesis]. West Hamilton (ON): Department of Economics, McMaster University, 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995. Discussion paper no.: 138Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health status. Oper Res 1982; 30 (6): 1042–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nord E. EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18 (1): 25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sculpher MJ, Dwyer N, Byford S, et al. Randomised trial comparing hysterectomy and transcervical endometrial resection: effect on health-related quality of life and costs two years after surgery. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 103 (2): 142–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, et al. A comprehensive multi-attribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10 (6): 923–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities indices. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health utilities index. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996: 239–52Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluations of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feinstein J. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: a review of the literature. Milbank Q 1993; 71 (2): 279–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ettner S. New evidence on the relationship between income and health. J Health Econ 1996; 15 (1): 67–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations