BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses commonly employ a multiattribute utility (MAU) instrument to estimate the health state utilities, which are needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Different MAU instruments predict significantly different utilities, which makes comparison of results from different evaluation studies problematical. AIM: This article presents mapping functions ("crosswalks") from 6 MAU instruments (EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, Health Utilities Index 3 [HUI 3], 15D, Quality of Well-Being [QWB], and Assessment of Quality of Life 8D [AQoL-8D]) to each of the other 5 instruments in the study: a total of 30 mapping functions. METHODS: Data were obtained from a multi-instrument comparison survey of the public and patients in 7 disease areas conducted in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, and United States). The 8022 respondents were administered each of the 6 study instruments. Mapping equations between each instrument pair were estimated using 4 econometric techniques: ordinary least squares, generalized linear model, censored least absolute deviations, and, for the first time, a robust MM-estimator. RESULTS: Goodness-of-fit indicators for each of the results are within the range of published studies. Transformations reduced discrepancies between predicted utilities. Incremental utilities, which determine the value of quality-related health benefits, are almost perfectly aligned at the sample means. CONCLUSION: Transformations presented here align the measurement scales of MAU instruments. Their use will increase confidence in the comparability of evaluation studies, which have employed different MAU instruments.
BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses commonly employ a multiattribute utility (MAU) instrument to estimate the health state utilities, which are needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Different MAU instruments predict significantly different utilities, which makes comparison of results from different evaluation studies problematical. AIM: This article presents mapping functions ("crosswalks") from 6 MAU instruments (EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, Health Utilities Index 3 [HUI 3], 15D, Quality of Well-Being [QWB], and Assessment of Quality of Life 8D [AQoL-8D]) to each of the other 5 instruments in the study: a total of 30 mapping functions. METHODS: Data were obtained from a multi-instrument comparison survey of the public and patients in 7 disease areas conducted in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, and United States). The 8022 respondents were administered each of the 6 study instruments. Mapping equations between each instrument pair were estimated using 4 econometric techniques: ordinary least squares, generalized linear model, censored least absolute deviations, and, for the first time, a robust MM-estimator. RESULTS: Goodness-of-fit indicators for each of the results are within the range of published studies. Transformations reduced discrepancies between predicted utilities. Incremental utilities, which determine the value of quality-related health benefits, are almost perfectly aligned at the sample means. CONCLUSION: Transformations presented here align the measurement scales of MAU instruments. Their use will increase confidence in the comparability of evaluation studies, which have employed different MAU instruments.
Authors: Mónica Hernández Alava; Allan Wailoo; Stephen Pudney; Laura Gray; Andrea Manca Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
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
Authors: Jennifer M Yeh; Janel Hanmer; Zachary J Ward; Wendy M Leisenring; Gregory T Armstrong; Melissa M Hudson; Marilyn Stovall; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger; Lisa Diller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Julie Ratcliffe; Emily Lancsar; Thomas Flint; Billingsley Kaambwa; Ruth Walker; Gill Lewin; Mary Luszcz; Ian D Cameron Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Tosin Lambe; Emma Frew; Natalie J Ives; Rebecca L Woolley; Carole Cummins; Elizabeth A Brettell; Emma N Barsoum; Nicholas J A Webb Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.981