From KIDSCREEN-10 to CHU9D: creating a unique mapping algorithm for application in economic evaluation

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Julie Ratcliffe¹  Donna Rowen¹  Katherine Stevens¹  Gang Chen² 

[1] Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK;A Block, Level 1, Repatriation General Hospital, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Daws Road, Daw Park 5041, SA, Australia

关键词: Adolescent;    Utility;    Mapping;    KIDSCREEN;    CHU9D;    Health-related quality of life;   

Others  :  1164533
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0134-z

 received in 2014-03-25, accepted in 2014-08-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The KIDSCREEN-10 index and the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) are two recently developed generic instruments for the measurement of health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. Whilst the CHU9D is a preference based instrument developed specifically for application in cost-utility analyses, the KIDSCREEN-10 is not currently suitable for application in this context. This paper provides an algorithm for mapping the KIDSCREEN-10 index onto the CHU9D utility scores.

Methods

A sample of 590 Australian adolescents (aged 11–17) completed both the KIDSCREEN-10 and the CHU9D. Several econometric models were estimated, including ordinary least squares estimator, censored least absolute deviations estimator, robust MM-estimator and generalised linear model, using a range of explanatory variables with KIDSCREEN-10 items scores as key predictors. The predictive performance of each model was judged using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE).

Results

The MM-estimator with stepwise-selected KIDSCREEN-10 items scores as explanatory variables had the best predictive accuracy using MAE, whilst the equivalent ordinary least squares model had the best predictive accuracy using RMSE.

Conclusions

The preferred mapping algorithm (i.e. the MM-estimate with stepwise selected KIDSCREEN-10 item scores as the predictors) can be used to predict CHU9D utility from KIDSCREEN-10 index with a high degree of accuracy. The algorithm may be usefully applied within cost-utility analyses to generate cost per quality adjusted life year estimates where KIDSCREEN-10 data only are available.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fontaine K, Barofsky I: Obesity and health-related quality of life. Obes Rev 2001, 2(3):173-182.
• [2]Tsiros M, Olds T, Buckley J, Grimshaw P, Brennan L, Walkley J, Hills AP, Howe PR, Coates AM: Health-related quality of life in obese children and adolescents. Int J Obes 2009, 33(4):387-400.
• [3]Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, Salomon J: Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York; 2007.
• [4][http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/Foreword] webcite National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013..
• [5]Erhart M, Ottova V, Gaspar T, Jericek H, Schnohr C, Alikasifoglu M, Morgan A, Ravens-Sieberer U: Measuring mental health and well-being of school-children in 15 European countries using the KIDSCREEN-10 Index. Int J Public Health 2009, 54(Suppl 2):160-166.
• [6]Crespo C, Carona C, Silva N, Canavarro M, Dattilio F: Understanding the quality of life for parents and their children who have asthma: family resources and challenges. Contemp Fam Ther 2011, 33(2):179-196.
• [7]Levin KA: Glasgow smiles better: an examination of adolescent mental well-being and the ‘Glasgow effect’. Public Health 2012, 126(2):96-103.
• [8]Block K, Gibbs L, Staiger PK, Gold L, Johnson B, Macfarlane S, Long C, Townsend M: Growing community: the impact of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program on the social and learning environment in primary schools. Health Educ Behav 2012, 39(4):419-432.
• [9]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(2):215-225.
• [10]Furber G, Segal L, Leach M, Cocks J: Mapping scores from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to preference-based utility values. Qual Life Res 2014, 23(2):403-411.
• [11]Boyce W, Torsheim T, Currie C, Zambon A: The Family Affluence Scale as a measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Soc Indic Res 2006, 78(3):473-487.
• [12]Ravens-Sieberer U: The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires—Quality of Life Questionnaires for Children and Adolescents—Handbook. Pabst Science Publisher, Lengerich; 2006.
• [13]Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Auquier P, Bruil J, Power M, Duer W, Abel T, Czemy L, Mazur J, Czimbalmos A, Tountas Y, Hagquist C, Kilroe J: Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(10):1487-1500.
• [14]Stevens K: Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res 2009, 18(8):1105-1113.
• [15]Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, Sawyer M, Stevens K, Brazier J, Burgess L: Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011, 9(1):15-27.
• [16]Ratcliffe J, Stevens K, Flynn T, Brazier J, Sawyer M: An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Qual Life Res 2012, 21(4):717-725.
• [17]Stevens K, Ratcliffe J: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the Child Health Utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value Health 2012, 15(8):1092-1099.
• [18]Stevens K: Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 30(8):729-747.
• [19]Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Stevens K, Brazier J, Sawyer M: Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 30(8):713-727.
• [20]Rabe-Hesketh S, Everitt B: A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata (Fourth Edition). Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL; 2007.
• [21]Mortimer D, Segal L: Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Mak 2008, 28(1):66-89.
• [22]Longworth L, Rowen D: The use of mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 2013, 16(1):202-210.
• [23]Jolliffe D, Krushelnytskyy B, Semykina A: Censored least absolute deviations estimator: CLAD. Stata Tech Bull 2006, 58:13-16.
• [24]Cameron AC, Trivedi PK: Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York; 2005.
• [25]Fox J: Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models (Second Edition). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2008.
• [26]Yohai VJ: High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. Ann Stat 1987, 15(2):642-656.
• [27]Verardi V, Croux C: Robust regression in Stata. Stata J 2009, 9(3):439-453.
• [28][http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457114.html] webcite Jann B: ROBREG: Stata module providing robust regression estimators..
• [29]Sullivan P, Ghushchyan V: Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Mak 2006, 26(4):401-409.
• [30]Willmott CJ, Matsuura K: Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 2005, 30(1):79-82.
• [31]Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D: Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 2007, 10(5):408-414.
• [32]Wong CKH, Lam CLK, Rowen D, McGhee SM, Ma K-P, Law W-L, Poon JT, Chan P, Kwong DL, Tsang J: Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or -colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value Health 2012, 15(3):495-503.
• [33]Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras V, Paliouras D, Niakas D: Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5 D, SF-6 D, and 15 D instruments. Value Health 2009, 8:1151-1157.
• [34]Chuang L-H, Whitehead SJ: Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull 2012, 101(1):1-15.
• [35]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(1):27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Payakachat N, Summers K, Pleil A, Murawski M, Thomas J III, Jennings K, Anderson JG: Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res 2009, 18(7):801-813.
• [37]Fayers PM, Hays RD: Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value Health 2014, 17(2):261-265.