Predicting preference-based utility values using partial proportional odds models

BMC Research Notes

John E Brazier¹  Ben A vanHout¹  Ben Kearns¹  Roberta Ara¹ 

[1] University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, 30 Regent Street, Regent Court, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK

关键词: Response mapping;    Ordered logit;    Partial proportional odds;    Regression;    Mapping;    EQ-5D;   

Others  :  1131975
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-438

 received in 2013-05-08, accepted in 2014-07-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The majority of analyses on utility data have used ordinary least square (OLS) regressions to explore potential relationships. The aim of this paper is to explore the benefits of response mapping onto health dimension profiles to generate preference-based utility scores using partial proportional odds models (PPOM).

Methods

Models are estimated using EQ-5D data collected in the Health Survey for England and the predicted utility scores are compared with those obtained using OLS regressions. Explanatory variables include age, acute illness, educational level, general health, deprivation and survey year. The expected EQ-5D scores for the PPOMs are obtained by weighting the predicted probabilities of scoring one, two or three for the five health dimensions by the corresponding preference-weights.

Results

The EQ-5D scores obtained using the probabilities from the PPOMs characterise the actual distribution of EQ-5D preference-based utility scores more accurately than those obtained from the linear model. The mean absolute and mean squared errors in the individual predicted values are also reduced for the PPOM models.

Conclusions

The PPOM models characterise the underlying distributions of the EQ-5D data better than models obtained using OLS regressions. Additional research exploring the effect of modelling conditional responses and two part models could potentially improve the results further.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ara et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, NICE: Ref N1618; 2008. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk webcite [Accessed 16th January 2012]
• [2]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd edition. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/index webcite. Accessed 17th May 2012
• [3]Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessmenthttp://www.sbu.se/en/ webcite accessed 17th May 2012
• [4]Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in Germany: Methods and Tools. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/home.2724.html webcite. Accessed 17th May 2012
• [5]Johannesson M Australian Government Health Technology Assessment: The Australian Guidelines for subsidisation of pharmaceuticals: the road to cost-effective prescribing? Pharmacoeconomics 1992, 2(5):355-362.
• [6]Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A: The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996, 5(2):141-54.
• [7]Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
• [8]Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11:215-225.
• [9]Ara R, Brazier J: Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimensions scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available. ViH 2008, 12(2):346-353.
• [10]Rowen D, Brazier J, Roberts J: Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D Index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009, 7:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R: Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. ViH 2012, 15(3):550-561.
• [12]Gray A, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decision Making 2006, 26:18-29.
• [13]Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, McColl E, Parkin D: Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ-5D indices. HEDS discussion paper (2002). Available at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/10952/ webcite. Accessed January 2012
• [14]Williams R: Generalized Ordered Logit/ Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Dependent Variables. Stata J 2006, 6(1):58-82. Available from http://www.nd.edu/ webcite~rwilliam/gologit2/
• [15]National Centre for Social Research and University College London: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Survey for England, 2004 [computer file]. 2nd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; 2010. SN: 5439
• [16]National Centre for Social Research and University College London: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Survey for England, 2003 [computer file]. 2nd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; 2010. SN: 5098
• [17]National Centre for Social Research and University College London: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Survey for England, 2005 [computer file]. 2nd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; 2010. SN: 5675
• [18]National Centre for Social Research and University College London: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Survey for England, 2006 [computer file]. 3rd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; 2010. SN: 5809
• [19]National Centre for Social Research and University College London: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Survey for England, 2008 [computer file]. 3rd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; 2010. SN: 6397
• [20]Communities and Neighbourhoods: Indices of Deprivation 2007. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2007. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ webcite