Literature DB >> 19961566

A median model for predicting United States population-based EQ-5D health state preferences.

James W Shaw1, A Simon Pickard, Shengsheng Yu, Shijie Chen, Vincent G Iannacchione, Jeffrey A Johnson, Stephen Joel Coons.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The D1 model that was developed to predict US societal preferences for EQ-5D health states addressed several important conceptual and statistical issues. However, it has been criticized for being too complex, failing to account for the nonnormal distribution of health state values, and the transformation of preferences for worse-than-death health states before estimation. This research was conducted to develop an improved model for predicting median preferences for EQ-5D health states for the US population.
METHODS: Probability-weighted least absolute deviations regression was used to fit models to the time trade-off data collected in the US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States study. No transformation was applied to the values for states considered worse than death. Several model specifications that differed with respect to explanatory variables were evaluated using two-sample cross-validation.
RESULTS: The best-fitting model included only fixed effects for moderate or severe problems in each of the 5 EQ-5D dimensions and excluded a constant. This specification yielded rank correlations between observed and predicted values and median observed and predicted values of 0.635 and 0.991, respectively, as well as a median absolute error of 0.026. The predicted median preferences ranged from 1.00 for full health, to -0.81 for the worst possible health state.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to its simplicity and robustness, a median model is superior to other models for predicting US population preferences for EQ-5D health states. The predictions of this model are suggested for use in applications that require US societal health state values.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19961566     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00675.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  12 in total

1.  Probabilistic mapping of the health status measure SF-12 onto the health utility measure EQ-5D using the US-population-based scoring models.

Authors:  Quang A Le
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Impact of transformation of negative values and regression models on differences between the UK and US EQ-5D time trade-off value sets.

Authors:  Liv Ariane Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Knut Stavem
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?

Authors:  Eleanor M Pullenayegum; Kuhan Perampaladas; Kathryn Gaebel; Brett Doble; Feng Xie
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-09-25

4.  Study protocol for Log2Lose: A feasibility randomized controlled trial to evaluate financial incentives for dietary self-monitoring and interim weight loss in adults with obesity.

Authors:  Corrine I Voils; Erica Levine; Jennifer M Gierisch; Jane Pendergast; Sarah L Hale; Megan A McVay; Shelby D Reed; William S Yancy; Gary Bennett; Elizabeth M Strawbridge; Allison C White; Ryan J Shaw
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Mapping of the OAB-SF Questionnaire onto EQ-5D in Spanish Patients with Overactive Bladder.

Authors:  Miguel A Ruiz; Laura L Gutiérrez; Manuel Monroy; Javier Rejas
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.859

6.  Within-Trial Evaluation of Medical Resources, Costs, and Quality of Life Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Participating in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

Authors:  Shelby D Reed; Yanhong Li; Helen A Dakin; Frauke Becker; Jose Leal; Stephanie M Gustavson; Bernt Kartman; Eric Wittbrodt; Robert J Mentz; Neha J Pagidipati; M Angelyn Bethel; Alastair M Gray; Rury R Holman; Adrian F Hernandez
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Non-monotonicity in the episodic random utility model.

Authors:  Nicolas A Menzies; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes.

Authors:  Mark Oppe; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Koonal Shah; Juan M Ramos-Goñi; Nan Luo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Lifetime cost-effectiveness simulation of once-weekly exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A cost-utility analysis based on the EXSCEL trial.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Helen A Dakin; Shelby D Reed; Yanhong Li; José Leal; Stephanie M Gustavson; Eric Wittbrodt; Adrian F Hernandez; Alastair M Gray; Rury R Holman
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 5.602

Review 10.  Using surveys to calculate disability-adjusted life-year.

Authors:  Wolfgang Wiedermann; Ulrich Frick
Journal:  Alcohol Res       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.