Alexander J Thompson1, Matthew Sutton2, Katherine Payne3. 1. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: alexander.thompson@manchester.ac.uk. 2. Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To predict health state utility values (HSUVs) for individuals with up to 4 conditions simultaneously. METHODS: Person-level data were taken from the General Practice Patient Survey, a national survey of adult patients registered with general practices in England. Individuals reported whether they had any 1 of 16 chronic conditions and completed the 3-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire. Four nonparametric methods (additive, multiplicative, minimum, and the adjusted decrement estimator) and 1 parametric estimator (the linear index) were used to predict HSUVs for individuals with a joint health condition (JHC). Predicted and actual utility scores were compared for precision using root mean square error and mean absolute error. Bias was assessed using mean error. RESULTS: The analysis included 929,565 individuals, of which 30.5% had at least 2 conditions. Of the nonparametric estimators, the multiplicative approach produced estimates with the lowest bias and most precision for 2 JHCs. For populations with a long-term mental health condition within the JHC, the multiplicative approach overestimated utility scores. All nonparametric methods produced biased results when estimating HSUVs for 3 or 4 JHCs. The linear index generally produced unbiased results with the highest precision. CONCLUSIONS: The multiplicative approach was the best nonparametric estimator when estimating HSUVs for 2 JHCs. None of the nonparametric approaches for estimating HSUVs can be recommended with more than 2 JHCs. The linear index was found to have good predictive properties but needs external validation before being recommended for routine use.
OBJECTIVES: To predict health state utility values (HSUVs) for individuals with up to 4 conditions simultaneously. METHODS:Person-level data were taken from the General Practice Patient Survey, a national survey of adult patients registered with general practices in England. Individuals reported whether they had any 1 of 16 chronic conditions and completed the 3-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire. Four nonparametric methods (additive, multiplicative, minimum, and the adjusted decrement estimator) and 1 parametric estimator (the linear index) were used to predict HSUVs for individuals with a joint health condition (JHC). Predicted and actual utility scores were compared for precision using root mean square error and mean absolute error. Bias was assessed using mean error. RESULTS: The analysis included 929,565 individuals, of which 30.5% had at least 2 conditions. Of the nonparametric estimators, the multiplicative approach produced estimates with the lowest bias and most precision for 2 JHCs. For populations with a long-term mental health condition within the JHC, the multiplicative approach overestimated utility scores. All nonparametric methods produced biased results when estimating HSUVs for 3 or 4 JHCs. The linear index generally produced unbiased results with the highest precision. CONCLUSIONS: The multiplicative approach was the best nonparametric estimator when estimating HSUVs for 2 JHCs. None of the nonparametric approaches for estimating HSUVs can be recommended with more than 2 JHCs. The linear index was found to have good predictive properties but needs external validation before being recommended for routine use.
Authors: Henry E Aloh; Obinna E Onwujekwe; Obianuju G Aloh; Ijeoma L Okoronkwo; Chijioke Joel Nweke Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ishani K Majmudar; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Bianca Brijnath; Michelle H Lim; Natasha Yvonne Hall; Lidia Engel Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Soudabeh Fazeli; Bradley S Snyder; Ilana F Gareen; Constance D Lehman; Seema A Khan; Justin Romanoff; Constantine A Gatsonis; Kathy D Miller; Joseph A Sparano; Christopher E Comstock; Lynne I Wagner; Ruth C Carlos Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01