| Literature DB >> 35725609 |
Jianni Cong1, Yanbo Zhu2, Jinhang Du3, Lin Lin4, Yuan He5, Qian Zhang1, Tan Ooh Chye1, Xiaoying Lv1, Wenqiong Liu6, Xinrui Wu6, Fanghui Ma6, Xinyuan Zhao6, Yuqiong Li6, Liqun Long6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to SF-6Dv2 in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure, and to obtain the health utility value for health economic assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Heart failure; MLHFQ; Mapping; SF-6Dv2; Utility
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35725609 PMCID: PMC9208129 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-02004-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.077
Patient characteristics
| Baseline sample | Follow-up sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 195 | Range | N = 194 | Range | |
| Male, n (%) | 98 (50.26) | 97 (50.00) | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 69.51 ± 11.67 | 27–88 | 69.48 ± 11.69 | 27–88 |
| NYHA, n (%) | ||||
| I | 2 (1.03) | 39 (20.10) | ||
| II | 52 (26.67) | 122 (62.89) | ||
| III | 105 (53.85) | 28 (14.43) | ||
| IV | 36 (18.46) | 5 (2.58) | ||
| MLHFQ, mean (SD) | 49.969 ± 26.497 | 0–103 | 33.227 ± 21.511 | 0–102 |
| Physical, mean (SD) | 23.882 ± 12.191 | 0–40 | 15.103 ± 10.031 | 0–40 |
| Emotion, mean (SD) | 9.851 ± 6.96 | 0–25 | 6.428 ± 5.300 | 0–25 |
| SF-6Dv2, mean (SD) | 0.449 ± 0.324 | − 0.269 to 0.962 | 0.649 ± 0.172 | 0.124–0.962 |
Fig. 1The correlation of MLHFQ scores with SF-6Dv2 utilities in full sample
Fitting results from tenfold cross-validation
| Model A | Model B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | RMSE | MAE | RMSE | |
| OLS | 0.121178 | 0.164604 | 0.120612 | 0.160373 |
| Tobit | 0.122966 | 0.162079 | 0.120697 | 0.162394 |
| MM | 0.123800 | 0.176927 | 0.124862 | 0.172766 |
| Clad | 0.125245 | 0.168051 | 0.126302 | 0.167214 |
Regression coefficient and standard error of the optimal mapping model
| Coefficient (SE) | |
|---|---|
| Constant | 0.9575 (0.0591)# |
| Physical | − 0.0066 (0.0037) |
| Emotion | − 0.0091 (0.0058) |
| Remainder items | − 0.0039 (0.0017)# |
| Physical2 | 0.0001 (0.0001) |
| Emotion2 | 0.0006 ((0.0004)) |
| Physical * emotion | − 0.0009 (0.0003)# |
| Age | − 0.0014 (0.0008) |
| Sex (women) | − 0.0009 (0.0187) |
#P < 0.05
Fig. 2The observed versus predicted SF-6Dv2 mapped from the optimal mapping model
Fig. 3Bland and Altman plot of differences between the observed and the predicted SF-6Dv2 value of OLS Model B
Fitting results of testing set with the optimal mapping model
| Mean | Minimum | Maximum | P.25 | Median | P.75 | MAE | RMSE | ICC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed | 0.531 | − 0.269 | 0.962 | 0.436 | 0.600 | 0.7110 | 0.142828 | 0.192225 | 0.743 |
| Predicted | 0.575 | 0.038 | 0.876 | 0.464 | 0.619 | 0.7600 | |||
| Abs diff | 0.044 | 0.307 | 0.086 | 0.028 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
Abs diff: The absolute value of the difference between predicted utility and observed utility