Literature DB >> 23832811

Constructing indirect utility models: some observations on the principles and practice of mapping to obtain health state utilities.

Christopher McCabe1, Richard Edlin, David Meads, Chantelle Brown, Samer Kharroubi.   

Abstract

The construction of mapping models is an increasingly popular mechanism for obtaining health state utility data to inform economic evaluations in health care. There is great variation in the sophistication of the methods utilized but to date very little discussion of the appropriate theoretical framework to guide the design and evaluation of these models. In this paper, we argue that recognizing mapping models as a form of indirect health state valuation allows the use of the framework described by Dolan for the measurement of social preferences over health. Using this framework, we identify substantial concerns with the method for valuing health states that is implicit in indirect utility models (IUMs), the conflation of two sets of respondents' values in such models, and the lack of a structured and statistically reasonable approach to choosing which states to value and how many observations per state to require in the estimation dataset. We also identify additional statistical challenges associated with clustering and censoring in the datasets for IUMs, additional to those attributable to the descriptive systems, and a potentially significant problem with the systematic understatement of uncertainty in predictions from IUMs. Whilst recognizing that IUMs appear to meet the needs of reimbursement organizations that use quality-adjusted life years in their appraisal processes, we argue that current proposed quality standards are inadequate and that IUMs are neither robust nor appropriate mechanisms for estimating utilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23832811     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0071-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  14 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?

Authors:  John Brazier; Ron Akehurst; Alan Brennan; Paul Dolan; Karl Claxton; Chris McCabe; Mark Sculpher; Aki Tsuchyia
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.561

4.  Modeling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method.

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets.

Authors:  Ben van Hout; M F Janssen; You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Jan Busschbach; Dominik Golicki; Andrew Lloyd; Luciana Scalone; Paul Kind; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments.

Authors:  Louise Longworth; Donna Rowen
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Mark Oppe
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease.

Authors:  I-Chan Huang; Constantine Frangakis; Mark J Atkinson; Richard J Willke; Walter L Leite; W Bruce Vogel; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development.

Authors:  K Claxton; S Palmer; L Longworth; L Bojke; S Griffin; C McKenna; M Soares; E Spackman; J Youn
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 4.014

View more
  4 in total

1.  Converting Parkinson-Specific Scores into Health State Utilities to Assess Cost-Utility Analysis.

Authors:  Gang Chen; Miguel A Garcia-Gordillo; Daniel Collado-Mateo; Borja Del Pozo-Cruz; José C Adsuar; José Manuel Cordero-Ferrera; José María Abellán-Perpiñán; Fernando Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-3L: assessing the external validity of existing mapping algorithms.

Authors:  Brett Doble; Paula Lorgelly
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Statistical Alchemy: Conceptual Validity and Mapping to Generate Health State Utility Values.

Authors:  Jeff Round; Annie Hawton
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2017-12

Review 4.  Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment: a systematic review of validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Nathan Bray; Llinos Haf Spencer; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2020-04-21
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.